I've heard people suggest to me (both personally and via the internet) that Sotomayor is a mainstream judge. Look, anybody that has been overturned 60% of the time by the Supreme Court isn't mainstream. You'll only likely see a higher overturn rate out of the infamous wack job 9th Circuit in San Francisco.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/766ae/766ae327ad45a9b2b59ef5ccd99d8f6fbabb5b72" alt=""
Her humble background doesn't qualify her to be a judge any more than any other American that has managed to crawl from the gutter all the way to the top of the legal profession. Honestly, it's superfluous and not germane to the argument of whether or not she should be on the Supreme Court. She seems to be an exceptional lady but as far as I'm concerned her ghastly reversal rate should disqualify her from sitting on the court; she shouldn't be sitting on the very judicial body that has reversed 60% of her rulings, and that is that - end of story.
Want To Pay Your Neighbor's Mortgage?
The Obama Administration is considering using tax dollars to pay distressed mortgages.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/766ae/766ae327ad45a9b2b59ef5ccd99d8f6fbabb5b72" alt=""
I think the far more interesting question to consider is what would happen if this were enacted, as compared to doing nothing. Would the delinquency rate shrink or increase more dramatically with or without mortgage aid? I know where I'd put my money.
Raises for Top NYS Senate Staffers
Holy #*@#. This one makes my blood boil. Rant time. Honestly I can't even believe this - during the past month 11 NYS Senate staffers have been given raises ranging from $10,000 to $32,000 -
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/766ae/766ae327ad45a9b2b59ef5ccd99d8f6fbabb5b72" alt=""
NYS and its officials are ignorant fools and a laughing stock. Sen. Malcolm Smith claims that these raises were authorized before the power struggle and budget impasse. WHO CARES? They never should have been authorized, particularly when our elected officials have eliminated numerous programs due to dire financial need (and horrifying budgeting for a very long time, but that is another story). These are the very same politicians who have been busy coming up with every single new surcharge and tax they can find to close a budget gap, then they'll turn around and hand a lackey a big, fat $10,000 - $32,000 raise.
ANTOINE THOMPSON AND WILLIAM STACHOWSKI, HEAR ME - I've had it. I suspect after hearing things like this that you've utterly abdicated your responsibility to the taxpayers of your region. You voted for a state budget that you told us was slashed, which is a half-truth - you cut future spending but the budget still increased 9%, which you partially funded with $3.6B in Obama's "stimulus" money meant for economic projects. Yes, that's right - NYS is one of many states that have utterly misappropriated stimulus funds. Your rubber stamp allowed three men in a room to ONCE AGAIN screw taxpayers on both the state and federal level - you merely took the $3.6B and filled the budget gap. No need for hard choices when Uncle Sam can come in and allow you to make the hard choices down the road, right? So, "Senators," what exactly do you do on a daily basis besides think of different ways to screw your constituents and pray daily for a time where they have the means to leave the state?
Antoine Thompson, you are my elected official and what I've heard disgusts me. These activities in the Senate are making me long to live in someone else's district, or even someone else's state. You are, and theoretically will be, a lifetime member of the class that sucks the public teat dry. Only in YOUR universe can people get $10,000 - $32,000 raises, paid for by taxpayers who are losing their jobs ostensibly because people don't want to do business in NYS anymore, due to a punitive and hostile business environment.
Do you laugh at us when you come home to your district? I hope that you didn't forget that you come from one of the poorest places in America. People here are far more horrified with excesses like this, as opposed to your colleagues in the wood-paneled rooms in Albany. Please, for the love of God, justify your elevation to State Senator and actually do something about these problems. Don't go along to get along, like Brian Higgins - I know you're eyeing Louise Slaughter's seat and if you carry this to the federal level our city will further deserve the politicians they elect.
Souter! I meant Souter was the one who REALLY disappointed Reagan. O'Conner and Kennedy less so, and only on particular issues.
im willing to admit that i tend to agree with you more often than you think. It's like you said at some past party " we have far more in common than not ". or something like that.
(e:matt) - I know we disagree on many things, whether or not you tell me probably won't change much! =P I know you agreed with me recently because (e:paul) wrote a comment to me recently to the effect of, "wow, this is something you and Matt agree on!" I had to laugh. Regardless of our disagreements my journal is generally a safe haven for extremely left wing thought, or any kind of thought, as long as people aren't being nasty. We all know each other and there's no really good reason for it.
lol you are right (e:josh), i take back my ugly comment. well...i'll take back 60% of it at least. In the future i'll try only to comment on your journals i agree with ;)
I've felt on a couple of occasions that Sotomayor, in the paraphrased words of a righty talk show host, lobbed one back full of topspin while the senator waved the racket around helplessly. (See Uncle Ted Kennedy vs. John Roberts in 2005). Particularly the question on gun rights today - I can't remember which senator questioned her, but he suggested that Americans wanted to know what her gut told her on this issue, and she responded by saying that this is not how judges determine rulings. CHECKMATE! She did well there.
This is the first Supreme Court confirmation hearing that I've either listened to or skimmed all the transcripts from, and let me tell you, I'm not going to bother in the future.
Boring even if you care.
She's very careful to talk about being bound by precedent in previous cases, and not talking about what she'll do once she can change precedences on the Supreme Court. A very distinct line of power, you're right.
It's understandable in one way, you don't want to nail someone down on how they'll rule in particular cases in a future that doesn't exist yet, but it'd be really nice to have a straightforward philosophical debate.
Confirmation hearings for Supreme Court seem like Kabuki theater, highly staged, rigidly directed, and tightly scripted.
This is inspiring a new post later - I want to know why lefties are supporting Sotomayor's nomination, outside of the fact that Obama was the one to put her up for the seat. I wonder if it's an article of faith that she won't screw the gay right and abortion crowds.
You never know (e:jim) - she has said repeatedly this week that she has been bound by precedent in her rulings, which was her justification for her ruling on the Ricci case. Either she is bound by precedent like she says she is, or she isn't. Personally I think it is BS - precedents change. I thought her answer was a bit of a copout, but then again we all know that this is the exact type of answer she's "supposed" to give. I don't think gay rights are really in danger with this lady.
It is a good point to make that not only has she not explained her opinions on these topics, but she's never actually ruled on them either. I'm not hearing anything from NARAL about Sotomayor yet - similar to Planned Parenthood the silence is deafening to me. Do you think it is too conspiratorial to suggest that the silence is deafening from these folks on these issues?
I want gay rights codified in the state Constitution, personally, so that the issue is taken out of the judge's hands. At least in NYS there is no ridiculous system of Constitutional amendments like in California. This is another reason why I want a state Constitutional convention. The constitution should say that everybody is treated equally, in every respect imaginable, in the eyes of the state law.
You never know, look at what happened to Ronald Reagan!
O'Conner and Kennedy vote more liberal on some issues then anyone would've guessed, and Sotomayor hasn't ruled on abortion or gay rights issues.
I'm hoping her Didden v. Village of Port Chester ruling (the only ruling of hers that really bothers me), is not reflective of what would happen when she's on the Supreme Court. I am not down with Kelo.
That's a good point (e:jason) - their silence is deafening.
Hmm. Well, eugenics proponent Margaret Sanger's Planned Parenthood isn't raising holy hell over Sotomayor, if that is any indication. No way would BHO ever nominate a pro-lifer. I'd fall back in my chair shocked if he did that.
We do know that the SCOTUS does overturn a majority of their cases - that much is pretty well understood. I think (e:jim) has effectively convinced me that I could be wrong about Sotomayor, although really the data isn't what did it. I still puzzle at her open contradictions regarding her testimony - thus far I've felt like I've listened to the president of the John Birch Society, which goes against her 10 years of public speaking on judicial philosophy.
I thought about it this morning; nobody apparently knows her views on abortion, gay marriage, etc. What is Sotomayor turns out to be a huge disappointment for the left as a result of this? We saw in CA (and know generally) that Latin Americans classically hold fairly conservative views on social issues. She claims that the Administration didn't ask her about abortion - I cannot believe that for one second. Under what circumstances would a liberal nominate a pro-lifer?
It made me wonder if we have another Justice Warren or Justice Kennedy on our hands, or if this lady holds both sharply liberal and sharply conservative views at the same time. Her explanation of the wise Latina comment I felt was plausible - that she was trying to inspire young people to further themselves in the professional world.
Ah, here it is :::link::: JuRI from U of South Carolina.
(randomly, cool visualizations of decisions, co-voting, and citation & semantic networks of SCOTUS opinions.)
(e:Jim), I'm searching for the SCOTUS decision dataset that I found during fall semester so your research will be easier ;-)
We can wait until 2017 when there will be an automatic referendum on having a constitutional convention :)
Oh, I realize I haven't commented on the NYS stuff. It seems we have bipartisan agreement here. I think the people have given up, actually. I feel like I've given up on NYS and am looking for a way out. I don't know how it's fixable. We know the government is broken and they don't work for us. We know they work to get the best offices, the perks, the ability to influence people with state money.
We're going to get a liberal judge, who is replacing a liberal judge, and that's probably what we should expect from President Obama. Although many people have forgotten since 2000, it's a President's prerogative to nominate who he wants.
Like I said USCF, what you're speaking of is not a reflection of whether or not she's a mainstream jurist, but the rarity of the SCOTUS reviewing cases in general - the court only takes approximately 1% of the cases.
This world has free will, (e:matt). You don't have to read this journal, so feel free not to. Keep your snarky comments to yourself - they're ugly.
To me the important statistic is that only 5 out of 150 decisions (if I am understanding all the stats) warranted Supreme Court review. If she was the activist pinko commie <expletive-deleted> <redacted> racist <redacted> <expletive-deleted> that some think she is, I would think a lot more of her decisions would have made it to the Supreme Court and a lot more would have been overturned. So I reckon I disagree with (e:joshua). Think of a judge as a NFL referee, if a referee only got reviewed 5 times in 15 years, I reckon most people would think that he was a good referee even if 3 of his decisions that were reviewed were overturned. But then again, if your team lost because of him . . .
Thanks (e:jim). Your fact checking has made this journal entry worth reading.
I'm so happy to see that we are in agreement w/respect to the other stuff, particularly the NYS senate. That body is pissing me off so much that I think I'm starting to understand how it must have felt to be a lib anti-war protester a few years ago - I want to yell and scream at the top of my lungs and I wish some others would come along with me. I hate feeling alone on these issues that are not political to me and will affect all of our futures.
I'm tired of the games with respect to the leadership - I blame both parties for hinging their political power on a couple of lowlifes with "alleged" criminal problems to sort out. I'm tired of being told the budget was cut when it quite obviously wasn't, and anybody can go to the State Budget office website and see that the general budget increased $10B, or 8.5%. I can't stomach being told that parks will close, or STAR will be cut, and a staffer will be given a $32,000 raise. Cuts in assistance to the elderly but some jackass patronage job holder in Albany can get a raise the size of a full income? NO MORE!
They are slapping taxpayers in the face and laughing at us! They are laughing at how voters are so apathetic that they could do almost anything, including flat out breaking the law as some have "allegedly" done, with no apparent consequences.
Have you been enjoying how NYS is quickly turning into an also-ran? I'm so mad that I think the only recourse we have is to insist on a statewide referendum, a Constitutional convention for our state, so we can rewrite how our government works, including term limits. We don't have politicians; we have leeches. Vulgar, disgusting people who would play games in the Senate chambers while the state circles the drain.
The stats are mostly just counting not regression analysis or using sophisticated and thus 'malleable' models, so somewhat hard to skew. I haven't verified anything personally. If I'm bored later I'll compile a 10 year average for overturning... :)
I'm rebutting but I had to ask this first. Here's a question - nobody seems to know Sotomayor's opinion on abortion and gay marriage. Does that make you nervous, being that she is in fact a devout Catholic latina? I don't mean devout in the Pelosi "I went to Rome so the Pope could take me to school" kind of way.
(e:jim) - 3 reversals from 150 opinions is in fact 2%, but it is nebulous because it disassociates itself from the reality of the number of cases that were actually reviewed. To say otherwise would be a clever slight of hand statistically. It would be more meaningful to say "3 of 5 doesn't mean crap, because it's only 5 reviews over the course of 15 years on the 2nd circuit." We're talking about the number of cases reviewed and reversed by the SC, not the number of reversals out of the total number of opinions, are we not?
I did see the SCOTUSblog stats, which are interesting for a single term. (A really nice site, I have to say, although like anything else I'm deeply suspicious of political bias and the fact that they aren't a statistical organization - do you know if they hired an outside firm?).
Let's take it all at face value. What about a career, though? After all, that's how we're judging Sotomayor. A single term's worth of stats aren't going to mean much; I'd love to see an aggregate over the course of 5 years, 10 years, 15 years, etc.
This is what I want to know - this is what is relevant - how out of whack is she in comparison to the court where she will sit, or the previous candidates? A sample of one term's reversals isn't going to give us a statistically reliable indication of that, although it does give us an indication of how the SC feels about deference to the lower court.
I'm waiting for one of you guys to flip Alito's 2/2 reversal rate to me and suggest again that the number of reviews aren't statistically significant! Not only that but the makeup of the court is not changing so conservatives shouldn't complain too loudly. If I read my own blog today I'd probably debate myself from that angle.
Hi Jim -
Good on you for correcting that! I had provided a link to the same SC reversal rate you linked to - as you mentioned that was only for the 9th Circuit, which is why I picked on them specifically. There is no court outside of Denmark or Holland that would seem to be in sync with the 9th Circuit! =D
Not taking the case is utterly different than actually being reversed - that can't be counted towards a reversal rate, but it is useful in other ways.
People have been very hard at work trying to put holes in the reversal rate argument, with not a lot of success. The SC rejects the vast majority of the cases it is asked to review (approximately 1% are taken by the court); you've noted Sotomayor's own record. This is very, very important - it illustrates that Sotomayor's own record reflects the general belief by the SC that taking up cases should be rare, not that Sotomayor's record reflects that her judicial temperment is moderate in nature.
The reversal rate is an indicator of how "in step" the candidate is in comparison to the actual court where the candidate is to be appointed. Or similarly, how out of step a regional court is with the central court. It is certainly true that she won't affect the makeup of the court, which is an issue I don't contend anyway (let's face it - GOP will look center-right and the donkeys will look center-left - we should get over it).
Anyway, I've seen this 75% stat you've mentioned, but only in comments left by left wingers on Internet articles. This must be coming from somewhere - I'd love to know where.
3 of 150 is actually 2%
Since joining the Second Appeals court she has authored over 150 decisions. That makes her reversal rate less than 10%, which is a hell of a lot better than Alito.
As for Bill An Toine. Fuck them. Fuck the whole senate. But especially fuck Tom Golisano and Steve Pigeon. We should put them in with the senate, building and all, into a rocket and fire them into the sun.
The process isn't quite as undignified as it was in the 2000's, but it still has a shady vibe to it, very uncomfortable. If 30-something Senators vote against her, I wonder how they'll be portrayed? I know what the hard cores like MoveOn and their ilk will say, but what about the regular media, NBC, the papers?
We're in for these contentious votes for the foreseeable future. Chuck Schumer and the rest of those goons can blow me with their talk about what is mainstream, what isn't, and when it's appropriate to question someone. I'm sick of that. To be honest I'm sick of the process becoming a mockery of good people with good intentions who want to serve their country, but now it seems too late to care, it's done.
About mortgages, NYS senate raises, and Antoine Thompson I am in agreement.
The NYS Senate should be sold as a reality TV property for NBC's fall lineup, deported to California, and a completely new Senate elected.
Or else make all legislative decisions using 20-sided dice, the result couldn't fail to be better.
Sweet, SCOTUSBLOG comes through:
:::link::: (PDF!)
75% of 2008 Supreme Court cases resulted in reversal.
Quick correction: that 90% overturn rate was for one federal court district, not all districts (in the link in my previous comment).
The actual national overturn rate is more like 75%, I'm trying to find some definitive stats without having to count all the cases on the SC's website.
Also, 60% is for 3 out of 5 cases, not a huge sample, of the hundreds of cases she ruled on without being taken up by the Supreme Court.
Nothing out of the norm, from what I can tell.
w/r/t Sotomayor:
She's a liberal judge and the Supreme Court has a slight conservative lean. There were many cases she ruled on the Supreme Court declined to review - if you include those the overturn rate drops.
Additionally, the Supreme Court overturns a large majority of all cases it reviews - if they don't want to change anything they usually just don't hear the appeal.
The Supreme Court overturned 15 of 16 cases this term: :::link:::
60% is a fairly good average in perspective with how the Supreme Court actually operates, and compared to the average of 90% plus overturned appeals looking at this term.
If she's not mainstream, then the 4 liberal justices on the Supreme Court bench also aren't mainstream. It's not like her rulings were rejected 9-0.