Comments on: A Good Judge http://theconservativist.com/2009/06/22/a-good-judge/ The Upstate's Source for Politics Thu, 02 Feb 2012 18:42:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Beverly Z http://theconservativist.com/2009/06/22/a-good-judge/comment-page-1/#comment-8344 Beverly Z Tue, 04 Aug 2009 04:00:02 +0000 http://theconservativist.com/?p=1407#comment-8344 I hope she keeps the DVD's of her confirmation hearings, just to see how incredibly stupid she looks! I'm a Catholic voter, and she says that she is a Catholic. Shame on her. Does she know the Constitution? Those hearings don't seem to show anything but her incredible arrogance about her decisions, and her refusal to share her personal views. God help this country. I hope she keeps the DVD’s of her confirmation hearings, just to see how incredibly stupid she looks!
I’m a Catholic voter, and she says that she is a Catholic. Shame on her.
Does she know the Constitution? Those hearings don’t seem to show anything but her incredible arrogance about her decisions, and her refusal to share her personal views.
God help this country.

]]> By: Kurt http://theconservativist.com/2009/06/22/a-good-judge/comment-page-1/#comment-8274 Kurt Tue, 14 Jul 2009 22:06:46 +0000 http://theconservativist.com/?p=1407#comment-8274 Actually, she didn't try to make law from the bench. You have to understand the difference between an apellate justice and a supreme court justice. An appellate justice (who knows if I'm spelling that right), has to take a decision that has been appealed and determine if the law as written was followed. Often there are contradictory laws that have to be weighed, but they are NOT allowed to look at if a law is constitutional... simply if it was followed properly as written. A supreme court justice has a different mission. They are asked to judge if the law that was followed was legitimate, or of another law (or the constitution) takes precedence. When the supreme court overturns a decision due to it following an unconstitutional law, it does not reflect on the appeals court judge who was overturned. The appeals court judge would be DEAD WRONG if they tried to do that... because they are NOT allowed to judge the constitutionality of a law. An interesting thing happened when Sen. Sessions was questioning Sotamayor today. He talked about another justice who he believed was what a judge SHOULD be for the supreme court. (Miriam Cedarbaum). Sotamayor's response: "My friend Judge Cedarbaum is here. We are good friends, and I believe that we both approach judging in the same way, which is looking at the facts of each individual case and applying the law to those facts." Cedarbaum confirmed afterwards to the media that he believes that Sotamayor does approach judging in the same manner, and glowingly endorsed her. To be honest... she's handling the Republican line of questioning brilliantly. In another question, Sen. Kyl went on a ten minut tirade about her without really asking a question or bringing up a specific ruling she made. Her response: "I have a record for 17 years, decision after decision," she replied. "It is very clear that I don't base my judgments on my personal experiences or my feelings or my biases. All of my decisions show my respect for the rule of law." Actually, she didn’t try to make law from the bench.

You have to understand the difference between an apellate justice and a supreme court justice.

An appellate justice (who knows if I’m spelling that right), has to take a decision that has been appealed and determine if the law as written was followed. Often there are contradictory laws that have to be weighed, but they are NOT allowed to look at if a law is constitutional… simply if it was followed properly as written.

A supreme court justice has a different mission. They are asked to judge if the law that was followed was legitimate, or of another law (or the constitution) takes precedence.

When the supreme court overturns a decision due to it following an unconstitutional law, it does not reflect on the appeals court judge who was overturned. The appeals court judge would be DEAD WRONG if they tried to do that… because they are NOT allowed to judge the constitutionality of a law.

An interesting thing happened when Sen. Sessions was questioning Sotamayor today. He talked about another justice who he believed was what a judge SHOULD be for the supreme court. (Miriam Cedarbaum). Sotamayor’s response:

“My friend Judge Cedarbaum is here. We are good friends, and I believe that we both approach judging in the same way, which is looking at the facts of each individual case and applying the law to those facts.”

Cedarbaum confirmed afterwards to the media that he believes that Sotamayor does approach judging in the same manner, and glowingly endorsed her.

To be honest… she’s handling the Republican line of questioning brilliantly. In another question, Sen. Kyl went on a ten minut tirade about her without really asking a question or bringing up a specific ruling she made.

Her response:

“I have a record for 17 years, decision after decision,” she replied. “It is very clear that I don’t base my judgments on my personal experiences or my feelings or my biases. All of my decisions show my respect for the rule of law.”

]]> By: TexasLIz http://theconservativist.com/2009/06/22/a-good-judge/comment-page-1/#comment-8236 TexasLIz Sun, 12 Jul 2009 14:40:56 +0000 http://theconservativist.com/?p=1407#comment-8236 But again, you've got your opposition line a little backwards. The Supreme Court when it chooses to consider a case can and does "create" law with their rulings. That is their exclusive role. Appelate courts, on the other hand, cannot. The lower court's ruling in the recent Ricci case was consistent with existing case law. The SCOTUS exercised their role of interpreting, or "creating" law if you will. There may be legitimate objections to Sotomayor, but her reversal rate is not one of htem. But again, you’ve got your opposition line a little backwards. The Supreme Court when it chooses to consider a case can and does “create” law with their rulings. That is their exclusive role. Appelate courts, on the other hand, cannot. The lower court’s ruling in the recent Ricci case was consistent with existing case law. The SCOTUS exercised their role of interpreting, or “creating” law if you will.

There may be legitimate objections to Sotomayor, but her reversal rate is not one of htem.

]]> By: Ron J http://theconservativist.com/2009/06/22/a-good-judge/comment-page-1/#comment-8047 Ron J Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:56:08 +0000 http://theconservativist.com/?p=1407#comment-8047 Well to be perfectly honest I believe most infromed people do realize that it was not 60% of her cases. In the real world if she would have had all her cases submitted for review to the Supreme Court she would not have been a judge long. So the basic idea here is that she tried to make law from the bench which is not legal. Knowing those simple facts she was over ruled, once again yesterday, she is not a good judge for the Supreme Court. Thank you for allowing me to explain that once again, I felt sure most everyone figured it out the first time especially since there is a link to the information at the bottom of the text. So tell me honestly do you think she is a good judge becasue she doesnt know the law or because she tries to change the laws illegally. Well to be perfectly honest I believe most infromed people do realize that it was not 60% of her cases. In the real world if she would have had all her cases submitted for review to the Supreme Court she would not have been a judge long. So the basic idea here is that she tried to make law from the bench which is not legal. Knowing those simple facts she was over ruled, once again yesterday, she is not a good judge for the Supreme Court. Thank you for allowing me to explain that once again, I felt sure most everyone figured it out the first time especially since there is a link to the information at the bottom of the text.
So tell me honestly do you think she is a good judge becasue she doesnt know the law or because she tries to change the laws illegally.

]]> By: Kurt http://theconservativist.com/2009/06/22/a-good-judge/comment-page-1/#comment-8043 Kurt Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:19:01 +0000 http://theconservativist.com/?p=1407#comment-8043 Yes, in 1.3% of her rulings. Not 60%. Both the 1.3% and 60% numbers are below the average for federal appelate court judges. Nearly 70% of ALL cases reviewed by the supreme court are overturned. The whole point of your post is flawed. Actually... I guess it's a little higher now. FOUR of her 232 rulings have been overturned. That's 1.7%. I'd just like to know... did you honestly think she had only issued 8 rulings in her 11 years on the appelate court? Or were you intentionally skewing the statistics to make a political point? Yes, in 1.3% of her rulings. Not 60%.

Both the 1.3% and 60% numbers are below the average for federal appelate court judges. Nearly 70% of ALL cases reviewed by the supreme court are overturned.

The whole point of your post is flawed.

Actually… I guess it’s a little higher now. FOUR of her 232 rulings have been overturned. That’s 1.7%.

I’d just like to know… did you honestly think she had only issued 8 rulings in her 11 years on the appelate court? Or were you intentionally skewing the statistics to make a political point?

]]>