http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/27/60-reversal-of-sotomayor-rulings-gives-fodder-to-f/)
@ article...A 60% REVERSAL RATE?!
"Her high reversal rate alone should be enough for us to pause and take a good look at her record. Frankly, it is the Senates duty to do so," said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America.
We'll see how it is handled. A majority of her cases reversed--3 out of 5? So that means 40% is in the okay... This is at least disquieting.
Judge Sotomayor already has been confirmed for the federal bench twice: unanimously in 1992, when President George H.W. Bush nominated her to a district court, and by a vote of 67-29 in 1998, after President Clinton nominated her to the appeals court. Seven Republicans who voted for her in 1997 are still in the Senate, and White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said "they're certainly well positioned to support her again."
Mr. Gibbs dismissed questions about Judge Sotomayor's reversal rate, saying she wrote 380 majority opinions during her 11 years on the appeals court. Of those 380 opinions, the Supreme Court heard five of the cases and overturned her on three.
"The totality of the record is one that's more important to look at, rather than, like I said, some out-of-context or clipped way of looking at it," Mr. Gibbs said.
Uh-huh?
Court watchers predict a majority of justices will rule in favor of New Haven, Conn., firefighters who said the city discriminated against them after it tested them for promotions, then scrapped the results after it realized a disproportionate number of whites would be promoted. Judge Sotomayor was part of a unanimous three-judge panel that issued an unsigned opinion ruling against the firefighters and in favor of the city.
The case, huh?
The White House was cognizant of the danger that case could present. An administration official, briefing reporters after the announcement, said Judge Sotomayor was not specifically asked about the case since it may come back before the Supreme Court with her as a member.
But the official said Judge Sotomayor's reading of the law in the case was well founded and defendable.
"It was a unanimous decision by the panel that she sat on, it applied 2nd Circuit law very faithfully and did rely upon what was a very thoughtful, well-written district court opinion and adopted that opinion," the administration official said. The White House refused to allow the official to be quoted by name.
Well of course the white house and current admin is going to come to her defense, obviously, if the president is keen on nominating her. At least they had the sense to let it catch her by surprise, but I'm sure if it's in the media like this it has already reached the attention of her strategists and PR crew--as well as it might also be on her mind as a possible questionable area anyway.
So their actions by virtue of the media reporting did very little in the way of effectiveness in its purpose. :¬:
In 2002, in a speech in California, Judge Sotomayor said race or sex does affect a judge's rulings, and said because of that, a minority woman is a better decider than a white man: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasnt lived that life."
Three years later, at a panel discussion at Duke Law School, she seemed to endorse judicial activism on the appeals courts, telling students considering clerkships: "Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know - I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don't make law. I know."
OK. While I can certainly appreciate "You weren't there so you don't know" as a defense, I find her statements a bit arrogant and contemptuous, sticking her nose up to formality of Standard Operating Procedure(s) like that.
Mr. Gibbs said the YouTube clip does not do justice to the context of Judge Sotomayor's comments, and said her record on the courts will be her answer to critics.
Well it certainly was unprofessional if nothing else. It certainly raises an eyebrow about her humility and respect for the formalities of her job, to say the least.
"The president is very convinced that people will look at the full context of this and not rely on, as I said, a small, short, out-of-context YouTube clip, and more importantly look at the basis of her entire record. I think you come to a broader understanding of who she is and what she meant," Mr. Gibbs said.
Well I certainly hope so, Mr. Gibbs. I'm trying to keep an open mind about it but in all honesty I don't like what I am seeing thus far. I'll give her that all judges might have an inflated opinion of themselves. That's to be expected. However, there has been a lot of reporting yet on the things she has said that were gender/color based when they very easily could have been sentiments based upon her impressive list of qualifications and career history in law. Being at least a good candidate if not overly qualified in a sense of merit, I'd think that would suffice. Yet she chooses to bolster herself in other ways...
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=45d56e6f-f497-4b19-9c63-04e10199a085)
Article
But despite the praise from some of her former clerks, and warm words from some of her Second Circuit colleagues, there are also many reservations about Sotomayor. Over the past few weeks, I've been talking to a range of people who have worked with her, nearly all of them former law clerks for other judges on the Second Circuit or former federal prosecutors in New York. Most are Democrats and all of them want President Obama to appoint a judicial star of the highest intellectual caliber who has the potential to change the direction of the court. Nearly all of them acknowledged that Sotomayor is a presumptive front-runner, but nearly none of them raved about her. They expressed questions about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship, and most of all, her ability to provide an intellectual counterweight to the conservative justices, as well as a clear liberal alternative.
:(
So being centrist = conservative? I think there are more than a few who would beg to differ with that assertion...
Are their gripes political or actual and based off of her work I wonder?
Emphasis mine
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." (During one argument, an elderly judicial colleague is said to have leaned over and said, "Will you please stop talking and let them talk?") Second Circuit judge Jose Cabranes, who would later become her colleague, put this point more charitably in a 1995 interview with The New York Times: "She is not intimidated or overwhelmed by the eminence or power or prestige of any party, or indeed of the media."
Uhh? Doesn't get to the heart of the issue? That does not bode well.
I'm trying to be fair here as a right winger, but does this not concern the general population about her ability to do her job? I find this bit of news kind of disturbing.
Emphasis mine
Her opinions, although competent, are viewed by former prosecutors as not especially clean or tight, and sometimes miss the forest for the trees. It's customary, for example, for Second Circuit judges to circulate their draft opinions to invite a robust exchange of views. Sotomayor, several former clerks complained, rankled her colleagues by sending long memos that didn't distinguish between substantive and trivial points, with petty editing suggestions--fixing typos and the like--rather than focusing on the core analytical issues.
So, like a forum n00b, lacking conciseness and being petty? I'd expect that of teens, people in their twenties, etc. with minimal eduaction or education not focusing on technicalities, interpretations, semantics, and other things of formalities that are absolutely vital, especially in law. In her case such emphasis on formality should be like second nature to her.
Given her level of education at such prestigious institutions, I expect someone of that caliber to have strong practice with a great deal of mastery born of years worth of experience. :(
Some former clerks and prosecutors expressed concerns about her command of technical legal details: In 2001, for example, a conservative colleague, Ralph Winter, included an unusual footnote in a case suggesting that an earlier opinion by Sotomayor might have inadvertently misstated the law in a way that misled litigants. The most controversial case in which Sotomayor participated is Ricci v. DeStefano, the explosive case involving affirmative action in the New Haven fire department, which is now being reviewed by the Supreme Court. A panel including Sotomayor ruled against the firefighters in a perfunctory unpublished opinion. This provoked Judge Cabranes, a fellow Clinton appointee, to object to the panel's opinion that contained "no reference whatsoever to the constitutional issues at the core of this case." (The extent of Sotomayor's involvement in the opinion itself is not publicly known.)
Say what? Now I know the guy was conservative and I invite anyone of opposing political background to jump in, but no reference to the constitutional issues in an affirmative action case? There is something indeed afoul of *THAT* since the constitution is what judges presumably go by. Or at least should go by. I pray this is not a repeated thing to occur.