Sotomayor Decision Overturned by Supreme Court

Assigned Reading: Supreme Court Overturns Sotomayor in Ricci Case
(FROM: The Washington Post)

This is very significant, yet the Post decides to devote only the final two sentences to the decision made by Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor at the Appellate level, even going so far as to soften the harsh words by the other Court of Appeals judge, Jose Cabranes, as though they were a constructive critique by a mentor rather than a shot at a hastily crafted judicial decision advanced by a judge completely consumed by identity politics.

Still, she was overturned by the Court yet again, making her record at the Supreme Court nothing short of abysmal. This is the fifth time she has either been overturned or had her reasoning faulted in an upheld decision — out of six appellate decisions reviews. On three of the previous four occasions, she was overturned for misreading statutes . . . failing to properly interpret the law. Gosh, shouldn’t we want a Supreme Court Justice who has proven herself to not only know the law but also be able to put aside matters of race and national origin and income level to fairly adjudicate the controversy at hand?

Nevertheless, I think today’s 5-4 decision to overturn Sotomayor in Ricci is being received by the White House in only one way — this only strengthens their resolve to ensure that the makeup of the court is changed. This should have been 5-4 in the opposite direction, I’m sure they’ve thought. And that prospect scares the heck out of me.

Share

Comments

  1. SUBPRIME JUSTICE says:

    What's your backup vocation Sonya? Jeff could teach you some Real Estate Law sans reverse discrimination.

  2. Bodenzee says:

    Please don't sdvise her to not give up her day job. She should.

    Perhaps Barry has an in at ACORN and they could create a place for her.

    I'm off to PACER now to carefully read her prior appealed decisions.

  3. Gail B says:

    Jeff, thank you for this one!

    I really didn't think the SCOTUS would have done it, overturned her decision, with the politics and all in place, as it were. They should have overturned it, though, and they DID!

    Yaaaaaay!

  4. JEFF SCHREIBER says:

    Rix — I tanked your comment here NOT because it was offensive, but because I'm superstitious and don't want anything bad to happen to the gentlemen you mentioned.

    After all, I mentioned Billy Mays last week, and look what happened!

  5. Rix says:

    Thanks for letting me know, Jeff. If you think it works, could you perhaps write more about Hugo Chavez or maybe Iranian president?

  6. goddessdivine says:

    At least something good came out of Washington today.

  7. SECRETS SUCK says:

    OK, Jeff and Rix, now I am curious.

  8. DON'T RECESS YET says:

    Hey Supreme Court, while it seems you have a set, let's look into some eligibility questions.

  9. JEFF SCHREIBER says:

    It was an interesting comment about two Justices. Nothing inflammatory, but I just didn't want to jinx anything.

    Superstitious. I don't know.

  10. HEY BARTENDER says:

    As in two justices walk into a bar?….

  11. YENG YANG says:

    Good jinx? Bad jinx? or hi-jinx?

  12. Gail B says:

    Object: No jinx!

    Jeff, thanks for clearing that up about Rix. My impression of him is that he would not say anything obtuse or in poor taste, and he didn't.

    And, I trust your judgment about tanking…you (thankfully) do it FOR me when I get out of sorts.

  13. GOOD MORNING SERGEANT says:

    Some of us not being incarcerated yet owe Jeff much gratitude. Though Cuba this time of year IS beautiful.

Speak Your Mind

*