News-Record.com

She’s female.
She’s Hispanic.
She’s liberal.
She’s divorced.
She’s overweight, with issues.
She is angry, probably from self-esteem issues.
Her rulings form the bench have often been reversed.
She has publicly proclaimed she is better than a white man, so she has a racial chip on her shoulder about a mile wide.

But let’s talk about the important stuff, from an Obama viewpoint, the things which make her the absolute best for the Supreme Court:
-She’s female.
-She’s Hispanic.
-She’s liberal.
Obama gains support from special interest groups, which equates to more money, power, and votes.

Thanks jaycee for your diagnosis of her anger. And overweight? What does that have to do with anything? She's had very few controversial rulings, and all appeals court judges get overruled a lot.

As for your last comment, I don't know where that came from. Even if it were true, do you think it could be because people like you think she's only getting the nod because of her race and not because of her strong credentials?

She has more experience than Roberts did, and she got the support of half the Republicans in the senate ten years ago.

Jesse Helms voted FOR her confirmation in 1998.

Andrew, yes, self-esteem issues for people in powerful positions can lead to serious consequences. Being overweight and picked on as a child certainly qualify. She's divorced, many times that leads to self-esteem issues. All of these things make for emotional instability and often a strong desire to use a position of power to retaliate against others, or even against the world. She's already publicly stated that she believes her role as a judge is to "make policy" which violates every code of judicial ethics ever penned.

If you think Obama doesn't make political decisions in his political world with political considerations, then you have your head buried in the sand. Dem politics nowadays is about regaining money, power, and votes, which lead to strength for the party.
Obama picked her for the advantage it gives him and the Dem party.

Was her ethnicity a factor in Obama's decision? I'd say so, and political calculation probably had much to do with that.

How about race in George H.W. Bush's selection of Clarence Thomas? Sure. Same reasons.

Given that, it always has to boil down to qualifications and fitness for office.

Sotomayor has a long record on the bench. Has she made statements and rendered decisions that can be picked apart and disputed? Certainly.

Has she disgraced her office, created some scandal, done anything to question her fitness as a judge? Not that I'm aware of.

I disagree Doug that it was smart to stay away from nominating a politician. It might make confirmation easier to take a sitting judge off the federal bench, but I think it would be beneficial to the court to have one or two politicians experienced in consensus building.

I think that experience could be hugely valuable in the function of the court. It seems so many of its decisions in the modern era are 5-4, which helps keep the court politicized as the losing side hopes to eventually gain a majority and revisit the issue.

But I'd also like to see a judge come off of a state supreme court now and again, too, one who might have a different understanding of how power between the two should be balanced.

Not coincidentally, Sandra Day O'Connor was the last justice to have held political office, and the last to have served on a state appellate court.

I don't really have an opinion yet on Sotomayor, though, and find those who do already intriguing (unless they're students of the federal judiciary).

I do agree that a state supreme court justice would be a good choice.

Why would a politician be a more apt consensus-builder? There are justices who play that role, while there are politicians who take a majority and roll over the opposition. It all depends on individual temperament.

Jaycee, your comments are absurd. You give reasons she might have self-esteem issues based on things like being picked on as a kid or a divorce, all of which happened decades ago. Who can't give a reason to have low self-esteem? A couple weeks ago I asked a girl out and she said no, am I now banned from public service? Anything can lead to feelings of inadequacy and feelings of inadequacy can lead to bad behavior, but there's a lot of ifs in there. It sounds like now the only people we can have on the court are thin and have never been made fun of. Maybe one of those three people has a law degree.

Of course Obama makes decisions with political considerations. But political considerations aren't everything. He didn't just nominate an Hispanic woman, he nominated a well-qualified Hispanic woman.

What's the matter with that girl?

What more do we need to know about this woman than that she supported the City of Hartford in the firefighters reverse discrimination case. The city said that even though the promotion tests were race neutral, non-discriminatory, that the promotions were disallowed merely because so few, if any, blacks were able to pass the test.

This is un-American, and the folly of Affirmative Action gone badly awry! And from what I read about it, the test was not difficult. This is the sad legacy of Bakke, and the catalyst for the dumbing down of nearly every segment of our society for the sake of "diversity."

Diversity is a noble goal, unless it becomes more important than competence, which is far too of the case today.

tonymo, she was only upholding the law. It was cut and dry. She would have had to overturn precedent and the Civil Rights Act to rule otherwise, which would have been an extreme case of judicial activism. There's a reason that ruling was unanimous.

You're right that there is no guarantee that a politician will be a consensus builder, nor one that a judge won't be, and that individual temperament is important.

Yet it stands to reason that a politician who has worked on consensus building -- as opposed to one who refuses to work with the opposing side of an issue -- is more likely to be adept at doing the same on the court than a judge whose experience is focused on reading and interpreting the law based on how he or she views the law.

Certainly there's no guarantee, but throughout most of the history of the supreme court, presidents have seen fit to appoint a few politicians.

First I want to apologize for the error, but the case was in New Haven, not Hartford.

Andrew you're going to have to explain the "law" that would have been broken. As has been state, the test was RACE NEUTRAL. Let me try to explain what that means. It means that the test was neither advantageous, nor disadvantageous to those of any race, just asking someone how much 2+2 is!

The city broke the law by denying the promotions to those who earned them. I fully understand that earning a promotion is passe in 21st Century Eurmerica!

Tonymo, again if it was so simple, the court wouldn't have ruled unanimously the other way. The Civil Rights Act has provisions about these types of tests and that if there's a large number of minority applicants and none pass, the statistical likelihood is so low that it is assumed there must be some bias in the test. This isn't me saying it, it's the law. It's the way it's always been applied over the last 40+ years, so it's the way the court felt it rule. You may have problems with the Civil Rights Act, but you can't blame judges on an appellate court judge for abiding by it.

Being overweight may well indicate a lack of discipline and personal pride as well as an inability or unwillingness to take responsibility for one's own appearance, health, and future well-being -

Andrew, do you believe that out of 250 million people in our country SHE is the only qualified candidate?
If you answer "No" then look into WHY Obama might have chose her over other qualified people.
Pretty simple...Obama picked her for the advantage it gives him and the Dem party by catering to special interest groups which, in turn, garner the Dems more money, power, and votes.
It's simple politics, Andrew, nothing magical about it.

Andrew, what are "these types of tests?" For the third time, these test passed muster as non discriminatory. No had an advantage or was put at disadvantage.

I love watching you liberals, who for most of my adult life fought discrimination, demand discrimination based on race. Even more ludicrous is your contention that the purpose civil rights act is to deny promotions to firefighters of one race who fulfilled the requirement for the promotion, simply because the sacred cows can't pass a simple test. Again, this is blatantly un-American, but a basic tenant of liberalism/Socialism.

If 15 sacred cows, and NO whites had passed the test would you be demanding that the SC's be deprived of the promotions!

Jaycee, I disagree that there's anything simple about it.

Granted, Obama scores points for nominating a Hispanic and a woman.

He potentially loses points by not nominating a black candidate, leaving Clarence Thomas -- whom many blacks and all liberals despise -- as the only African American on the court.

I mentioned the Thomas nomination by the senior Bush. What about Reagan's selection of Sandra Day O'Connor? Was she absolutely the best possible candidate in all the land, bar none? Or did Reagan feel it was time to finally put a woman on the court? (Doing so did NOT hurt him with women voters in 1984.)

She turned out to be a good justice.

This has to work out just as well for Obama or he'll lose credibility. Being a female Hispanic isn't good enough for Sotomayor. She doesn't have to be the best possible candidate -- how do you measure that, anyway? -- but she must have demonstrated ability.

Jaycee, again your argument makes little sense. No matter who it was there would be someone else who's also qualified. Were Roberts and Alito chosen just because they are white men? Obama chose someone he thought was qualified and who a lot of Republicans in the senate have voted to confirm before. That's a political reason that, quite frankly, is more likely. It's a lot harder to vote against someone you voted for before than to vote against someone new.

If there was a pool of candidates and Obama had gone with the white man, would people on the right be screaming saying "he's just nominating someone from the only demographic he lost! It's a political move!" I don't think so. However, even if you are 100% right and from the very beginning he said, "find me an overweight Hispanic woman to nominate," so what? Is she qualified? If not, why not? And if so, well too bad if Obama didn't pick the perfect person. I doubt that everyone has the same #1 choice, and that goes for every single appointment he or any other president will ever make. If there are a pool of qualified people, as you suggest and I agree with, isn't it good enough that he pick someone from that pool?

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion (as a judge) than a white male who hasn't lived that life” -Sonia Sotomayor.

What in the name of God does this nonsense have to do with interpreting the Constitution, WHICH WOULD BE HER ONLY RESPONSIBILITY. If she wants to make laws she should run for congress!

She should regret that statement, which will be thrown up at her hearings. But it's not a confirmation killer. After she's been on the bench so many years, what matters is the consistency of her work. Even a few questionable rulings shouldn't necessarily be disqualifying if they were well reasoned.

I am suspicious of the New Haven case but don't know enough yet to form a firm opinion. It will be very interesting to see how the Supreme Court decides it. I'll bet it won't be unanimous either way. If it's not, you don't get to toss the dissenters from the court. You have to accept the fact that conscientious judges can reach different conclusions about the law.

Tony, my thoughts on affirmative action have not come up here at all and have nothing to do with my argument. If you want to know, yes, I believe minorities and women are still disadvantaged by racism and discrimination, and you certainly aren't dissuading me of that. But she upheld the law. Period. I'm sorry if you don't like that, but if she overturned a law you like, you'd call her a horrible judicial activist. By stated conservative standards (which I admit have nothing to do with your real standards), i.e. leaving the issue to legislatures and following precedent and showing judicial restraint, she was the perfect conservative judge on this case.

I also said nothing about the CRA being about denying promotions. Its purpose is to give minorities opportunities. Sadly for limited positions giving someone an opportunity takes it from someone else. That sucks, but it happens every day, in every job, it's happened to me, and it's probably happened to you. On the other hand, sometimes I've gotten an opportunity that took away one from someone else. That's life.

"If she wants to make laws she should run for congress!"

This whole post all you've been saying is that she's a bad judge because she didn't make laws in regard to the city of New Haven!

Also, interpreting the Constitution is not the only job of a Supreme Court justice. There are lots or other laws they are concerned with.

SOTOMAYOR: All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience because it is -- Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don't make law, I know. (laughing) Okay, I know. I know. I'm not promoting it and I'm not advocating it. I'm -- you know. (laughing)

"The Supreme Court has reversed Judge Sotomayor in four instances where it granted certiorari to review an opinion she authored. "In three of these reversals, the Court held that Judge Sotomayor erred in her statutory interpretation," meaning she goofed up on the law. She was overturned four times when she wrote the opinion, the lead opinion, and in three of the four cases the Supreme Court held that she erred in her statutory interpretation. The cases are Knight v. C.I.R., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dabit, New York Times, Inc. v. Tasini, and

She's not even a very good judge. She keeps getting slapped down by the very Supreme Court she wants to join!

From Judgepedia:

The Supreme Court has reversed Judge Sotomayor in six instances where it granted certiorari to review an opinion she authored. In three of these reversals, the Court held that Judge Sotomayor erred in her statutory interpretation. In one case, the Supreme Court vacated a judgment made Judge Sotomayor and remanded the case back to the Second Circuit.

* In Knight v. C.I.R., (128 S.Ct. 782, 2008.), the Court found that, based on an erroneous interpretation of the tax code, Judge Sotomayor applied an incorrect standard.
* In Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dabit, (547 U.S. 71, 2006), the Court found that Judge Sotomayor failed to apply precedent correctly in interpreting a scope of preemption provision of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act.

* In New York Times, Inc. v. Tasini, (533 U.S. 483, 2001), the Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit’s reversal of Judge Sotomayor’s district court ruling that the Copyright Act permitted electronic publishers to reproduce all articles in a periodical under a “collective works” privilege, concluding that Sotomayor erred in her interpretation of “revision of [that] collective works” privilege in the Act.

* In Correctional Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, (534 U.S. 61, 2001), the Court reversed Sotomayor for allowing an inmate to sue a halfway house operator for negligence based on a Bivens claim. After the trial court dismissed the case, Judge Sotomayor reversed and reinstated the litigation. The Supreme Court reversed Judge Sotomayor’s decision, holding that the former inmate did not lack effective remedies and that he had full access to remedial mechanisms established by the Bureau of Prisons. The Court also held that the former inmate’s suit would not have advanced Bivens’ core purpose of deterring individual officers from engaging in unconstitutional wrongdoing.

* In Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA (475 F.3d 83, 2007) The Supreme Court reversed Sotomayor's ruling in a 6-3 decision, saying that Sotomayor's interpretation of the "best technology" rule was too narrow. Sotomayor orginally ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency may not engage in a cost-benefit analysis in implementing a rule that the "best technology available" must be used to limit the environmental impact of power plants on nearby aquatic life. The case involved power plants that draw water from lakes and rivers for cooling purposes, killing various fish and aquatic organisms in the process. Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg dissented, siding with Sotomayor's position[39].

* In Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh (396 F.3d 136, 2005) In 2005, the United States Supreme Court reversed in a 5-4 decision a ruling in which Madam Appeals judge Sotomayor ruled against a health insurance company that sued the estate of a deceased federal employee who received $157,000 in insurance benefits as the result of an injury. The wife of the federal employee had won $3.2 million in a separate lawsuit from the respective insurance company where she claimed caused her husband's injuries. The health insurance company sued for reimbursement of the benefits paid to the federal employee, saying that a provision in the federal insurance plan requires paid benefits to be reimbursed when the beneficiary is compensated for an injury by a third party[39]. The Supreme Court in its ruling that under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act of 1959 (FEHBA), state courts and not federal courts are the proper forum for a lawsuit by a plan administrator seeking reimbursement for medical costs paid by the plan on behalf of a beneficiary when the beneficiary recovers damages in a tort action against a responsible third party[40]. Justices Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, and Alito dissented.

* In The European Community v. RJR Nabisco (2005), the court remanded a ruling back to the Second Circuit in which foreign nations cannot sue US entities over collection of taxes in which the European Community sued RJR Nabisco and other tobacco companies alleging violation of the RICO (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) statute, (18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968). This was ruled in not the RJR Nabisco case, but the Pasquantino v. United States case that it wrote in over the issue of foreign entities suing US companies that it declined to address the RICO allegations and ordered to remand the case back to the Second Circuit to reconsider in light of the Pasquantino opinion[41]. On September 13, 2005, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that foreign governments cannot bring civil suits in US Courts against tobacco companies under the RICO statues to recover lost tax revenues and law enforcement costs due to alleged smuggling. This was viewed by many legal experts technology related opinion that could benefit international e-commerce[41].

What? You mean in ten years she had some rulings reversed? No way! Some of them you site were reversed by 5-4 decisions, so what's the big deal? There were disagreements? Why do you think there's not just one Supreme Court Justice? She's been confirmed by a Democratic senate and by a Republican one. She's been nominated by Republican presidents and Democratic presidents. You guys don't have a leg to stand on. And you people should be grateful because the others on the short list were more liberal.

"...deny promotions to firefighters of one race who fulfilled the requirement for the promotion, simply because the sacred cows can't pass a simple test."

Some black firefighters did pass the tests, but because the limited number of slots was smaller than the number of whites who outscored them, there was no chance for any blacks to be promoted.

This is probably more than anyone cares to learn about this, but here's the Circuit Court decision:

http://www.cir-usa.org/legal_docs/ricci_dc_op.pdf

Some of the ways these tests were created seems odd. The company hired to design the test interviewed current high-ranking officers to find out what they thought was important about the job(s), so if you're a close follower (lackey) you might have an advantage there.

Plus, supposedly the study books were provided (free of charge) along with the applications for promotion, but Frank Ricci testified that he spent $1,000 buying books and paying somebody to read them to him. Did he have access to books the others didn't know about, or if they knew, couldn't afford? Weird.

But my take is: the city acted reasonably in not certifying the tests, and the court acted reasonably in backing up the city's decision.

Here is the oath that Sotomayor will take: "I solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons and do equal right to the poor and to the rich and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge?"

What has that to do with empathy? A Georgetown Law professor, Randy Barnett says that "empathy" is a code word for "diversity" which is a code word for preferential treatment.

If the SCOTUS doesn't reverse the New Haven ruling there is no need for such a court, because we are finished as a society. Of all the horrible rulings they've made over time, this would be one of the worst.

"She's not even a very good judge. She keeps getting slapped down by the very Supreme Court she wants to join!"

The current Chief Justice lost 14 cases in front of the Supreme Court...

Obama has chosen to force the Race Card on us citizens once again.

"You oppose Obama?? You're a racist!"
"You oppose Sotomayor?? You're a racist!"

Sotomayor has the additional asset of being female, which means Obama's minions can scream "Misogynist!" at those opposing this weak nominee as well.
She's a marginal judge at best, a person fraught with personal problems, and a mere token for identity politics.
Dump her.

Jaycee, maybe if you had objected to her credentials instead of first leaving a few comments objecting to her race, gender, weight, and made-up psychological problems you would have reason to be offended by it. Instead you've tipped your hand and made it impossible to take you seriously in this argument. I'm sorry if someone called you a racist. Stop giving them reason to.

The reason, for you clueless out there, that so many people objecting to her are being accused of racism or misogyny is that the first thing people say is "she better not let her race or gender affect her decision." When did people say, "John Roberts better not let his race or gender affect his decision." People are taking it as a given that white men will be impartial when it comes to race and gender but that Latina women will not. That is why people are calling racism. And that is why they are right.

Jaycee, clueless?
Got bad news news for you.
Jaycee, called the Duke case on the first day.
How long did it take the liberal media?
To after the election. Which was all it was about anyway.
If Ann Coulter, had made the remarks, this lady had made, it would be a liberal hatefest.
Heck, Richard Burr takes his on money out of ATM and its headline hate news.
Its what you call unfair and liberal news coverage.
Keep up the good work Jaycee and Tony, I love real Americans, who put America first.
Jaycee ignore the personal attacks, this is what being a liberal is all about.

Ha, if Ann Coulter made those remarks people would wonder why she got so sweet all the sudden. She's offensive on purpose. She wants the media to make a big deal of it. That's how she operates. And Burr was an idiot for calling for people to run the banks. That wasn't an ideology problem, it was a stupidity problem. That's nice that you love "real Americans." What does that mean exactly? Those kind of comments are rather chilling. Are the "real Americans" the ones who look like you or think like you or both? And as for personal attacks, look at the very first comment on this thread and you'll see a ridiculous personal attack on every physical characteristic jaycee could see on Sotomayor and a bunch of made-up characteristics he pretends she has based on her past. For the first part of this thread all criticisms of her were personal, not about her merits. So it was the liberal here who started with personal attacks and hate? Again, I say clueless.

I won't comment much on the Duke thing as I was out of the country and out of the loop when that went down, but as I recall it was Roy Cooper who finally put an end to all of it.

Sotomayor has a 60% reversal rate from the Supreme Court. SIXTY PERCENT!!
Her credentials suck. She's a mediocre judge, nothing outstanding about her compared to her peers.
The main difference between she and her peers is that she's Hispanic and female.
Andrew, if you don't understand the significance of those two things to a Dem leader scrambling for money, power, and votes from special interest groups, then you're not smart enough to participate in this conversation.
She has obvious physical/emotional challenges. I can only imagine the heartbreak she went through as a young fat girl, picked on and abused by her schoolmates. The twisted personalities that result from being preyed on like that have led to things like the Columbine School shooting and Kipland Kinkle "going postal."
I don't think our country needs someone with those kinds of problems on the highest court in our land.

jaycee, it all depends on how you want to use statistics.

Here's a report about her 60 percent reversal rate in today's Washington Times:

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/27/60-reversal-of-sotomayor-rulings-gives-fodder-to-f/

It says that in 11 years on the federal appeals court bench, five decisions she authored were reviewed by the Supreme Court and three of those were overturned -- 60 percent.

However, during that time she authored 380 majority opinions -- which means that 375 were NOT reviewed by the Supreme Court.

So you could say, with more accuracy, that only 3 of 380 of her decisions were overturned -- a reversal rate of much less than 1 percent.

Case not granted certiorari by SCOTUS are not subject to reversal by SCOTUS, so how can they be viewed as part of a reversal rate??

The significance is that Sotomayor made bad rulings, and the SCOTUS agreed.
60% reversal by SCOTUS is poor performance.

It's truly sad that Obama is using the race card as a toy to be played with at the expense of our greatest legal entity, the United State Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court should review cases in which it thinks there's a possibility of error. If it chooses not to review a lower court ruling, you can assume the Supremes think it was correctly decided.

It is misleading to say a judge has a 60 percent reversal rate based on three reversals out of 380 cases. You could accurately and fairly call it a reversal rate of 60 percent of the cases reviewed.

Wrong again.
SCOTUS granted certiorari to 5, and found her wrong in 3 of those. That's a 60% failure rate, no matter how you slice it.
Nice red herring, but in order to claim only 3 out of 380 cases were reversed then the SCOTUS would have had to review ALL 380 cases. This didn't happen, and you know it.
She's a marginal judge, an identity politics nominee, and has been called a "bully on the bench" by her staff.
Dump her and get a real jurist.

Jaycee, the Supreme Court overturns the decision of the lower court in 75% of the cases it hears. That makes her much better than average. Cases that the court is clearly going to agree with they don't bother to take up.

I was curious about the "bully on the bench" quote. It comes from Jeffrey Rosen, writing in The New Republic:

"The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was 'not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench,' as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. 'She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue.'"

Unless you have another source, jaycee, this is not a comment by "her staff" but by one anonymous former clerk of another judge, also unnamed. So let's not distort things here.

Nevertheless, comments like this should be considered. A judge's temperament is important and should be evaluated during the confirmation process.

I'm suspicious of the comment that she's "not that smart." She was a high-ranking graduate of Princeton and editor of the Yale Law Review. People who are "not that smart" don't win those honors.

However, if she's not a brilliant judge and isn't likely to become a liberal counterweight to Roberts and Scalia, conservatives ought to be pleased.

Wrong, Andrew.
The SCOTUS grants certiorari to on cases in which it believes there's a constitutional question.
Comments by one's coworkers or those who've observed her in her professional setting which indicate Sotomayor is a "bully on the bench" I think are very relevant, given her obvious physical challenges and the tendency for psychological problems with those challenges. Again, I'd refer to Columbine and Kip Kinkle as extreme examples of revenge based on being a victim, but it's food for thought.
Could her bullying be a manifestation of using a position of power for revenge against those with whom she's angry? Who knows...
In the end, Sotomayor is one thing and one thing only...an identity nominee. Obama picked her not for her jurisprudence but for her race and gender, to garner support from special interest groups. Obama and his minions can now attack anyone who objects to her nomination by claiming they're racists and misogynists. It's the race card, and it's being played by one who owes his very success to it....Obama.

I can't wait to see which senator raises the "Columbine" objection to Sotomayor's confirmation, or questions whether she's "too fat" to be a judge.

Jaycee, your point did not disprove mine. You say in those cases she had a 60% failure rate. Fine. But the average is 75% failure rate. Also, what does it tell you that a questionable constitutional issue only came up 5 times out of 380? Most of her rulings must have been solid. By your logic judges who rule against the majority on the court must be bad. Since Kennedy no doubt is with the majority most, he must be far and away the best judge on the court. Is that how you feel? More importantly, she's going to be replacing a judge who's also liberal. The only way she changes outcomes on the court is if she is more conservative than Souter. If you don't think that's the case, then things stay the same.

As for the race card, you and critics like you have made her race the issue. You are playing the race card by acting like her race wipes out her accomplishments while those of a white person bolster their credentials. How many degrees from Ivy League schools does she need to have and finish at the top of her class before she's as good as a white person to you? If you don't want to talk about identity politics, don't use identity politics. What evidence do you have that she's angry besides one anonymous and uncorroborated claim? Chief Justice Roberts is known for harshly questioning people in the court. Does that mean he has anger issues and can be compared to the shooters at Columbine? Your delusional and, yes, racist garbage is sickening. I'm done with this discussion.

To suggest that the SCOTUS reviews 380 or more cases from each of tens of thousands of judges is ludicrous. I strongly suggest you do some research on the process of moving a case before the SCOTUS so you know what you're talking about.
What's significant is that Sotomayor has a high incidence of the SCOTUS telling her she erred in her rulings on the law. She is mediocre, at best.
But what sets her apart from any of the other Court of Appeals judges or other judges and makes her appealing to a minority president elected after playing the race card? That's an easy one...she's a double minority and the race card can be played to her advantage as well. It already IS being played with the usual suspects mainstream media portraying any opposition as "racist."
Obama knows what sells...and he's selling it. He cares not about the integrity of our justice system, he cares about money, votes, and power for the Dems.
This is about politics, Andrew, it has nothing to do with justice or the law.

"It is misleading to say a judge has a 60 percent reversal rate based on three reversals out of 380 cases."

I agree, Doug. If this statistic was being used in an argument between justices, SC clerks or lawyers, they would all know exactly what it meant. But if you quote something like that to the general public without any deeper explanation, the average layperson will make the assumption that 60% of all of her cases had been reversed, not just the few that were challenged.