Tales from the Wonderland
 

Just when you think you've seen it all! White House spins again...
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...cle=1&catnum=3

I went to the link and saw two ads on the page..One for a colon cleanser and the other for a subscription to the Newt Gingrich newsletter..

That's all I needed to know..

This should be better as it has an ad for Gay Marriage Tshirts so I'm presuming it's a left leaning source. Same article though.

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics...,1302098.story

??? You might look at the record of other Supreme Court nominees in the past, and their reversals, before you get all worked up over this. It doesn't mean much.

Hardly worked up......just proves the boondoggle that is Obama!

So far....Sotomayor is 1 for 6 with Supreme Court! That's really dealing from a position of strength,huh?:eek:

The fact her decisions even got to the Supreme Court and taken
up by them means she was facing some tough cases. So your point
is well taken that the experience is clearly there and she has dealt
with tough cases.

And it is also patently clear she is liberal. The last case I looked at
her decision was reversed 5-4. Alito, Kennedy, Thomas, Scalia, Roberts
(conservatives)against, Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer (liberals)
on the other side.

So what is exactly astonishing about her record in the Supreme Court?

Nothing. The Supreme court did the right thing by the firemen , she was totally wrong in more ways than one.

the 9th district court where i live has a 94% reversal rate.

the average for all district courts combined is 76%.

"Most analysts dismiss statistics on reversal as of little significance, given the small number of cases reviewed from most circuits. The 6th and 8th circuits, which together cover 11 states from Tennessee to the Dakotas, saw 100% of their cases reversed this term. The 11-state region accounted for only nine cases on the high court's 83-case docket."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,6543288.story

you misunderstand the roll of the supreme court if you think a high reversal rate is somehow indicative of error by a district court. it's usually a case where:

a)precedent isn't well established and they want to weigh in to give direction, or

b) they want to reverse direction given in a prior supreme court ruling.

the pool you're measuring from is the cases they've agreed to hear.

guess what? they don't bother hearing cases on well established legal principals. why would they?

that's why all district courts, including the 2nd, get reversed more often than not on the limited number of cases the supreme court agrees to hear.

They may have.
And it probably was very good news for
the individuals that brought the suit against the
city.

But this was not an easy one.

The City that declined to use the test given
because they thought a suit would be brought against
them on grounds of racial discrimination because the results
of the test were badly skewed.

The Supreme Court decided that was not necessarily true.
(That the city should have dropped the exam because they were bound
to get sued)

And there is even more.

These cases are usually more complex than appear on
the surface. The legal questions are not what they appear to
be in many of these cases.
They usually make my head hurt.

And 4 out of 9 justices, her liberal "brethren", were with her.

The Supreme Court doesn't always get it right, although in this case I think they did. Seizing private property to get more tax dollars is scary. I don't believe she would come down on the right side of that one.

So its that simple in what kind of cases?
The government takes your property in order
to get tax money...

What case was that?

Thursday, June 23, 2005
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A closely divided Supreme Court ruled June 23 that municipal and other governments have broad power to seize private property for public purposes.

In a 5-4 ruling, the high court upheld the right of New London, Conn., to seize and raze several private homes and replace them with a waterfront office, retail and housing project. The court's majority held that the depressed industrial town's leaders could claim and redevelop the property for the "public use" of creating new jobs and increasing tax revenue.

Somehow I think she'd be in the majority on this one.

So it was imminent domain.
It is not about taxes. Its about getting
people jobs. People who have jobs can
pay taxes so a city can function.

BTW I personally was NOT happy with the decision.
But it was again simplified by the original poster.

Depends on whether the people were fairly compensated.....Eminent Domain
is probably the weakest arguement for creation of jobs,imo!

david souter was one of the 5.

and you have a democratic president and senate.

why are we talking about this case? did you expect an appointment more conservative than souter?

That is why I did not like the decision.
Using it to buy land to be able to transport
water, power, etc... seems much more reasonable.

It was also a city using this for a private entity
to make money imo.

Frankly I think the Obama group is hoping the conservatives
throw a fit and make it difficult. She will get confirmed anyway.
They will most likely have to replace another more liberal leaning
judge (the group of 4 is old)and I think a losing fight now, makes the next appt. easier to get through.

you're right. they don't care about fits.

they knew this was a slam dunk. they still know it's a slam dunk. it was the easy non-controversial choice.

pissing on the nominee is part of the fund raising process for "judicial watch" groups. it justifies their existence even when it quixotic. there will always be a "controversy" manufactured. both sides do this.

I'm still trying to figure out how John Roberts sailed through confirmation and then was suddenly Grand Poohbah:zz:

I mean...wasn't Rose Marie available?