Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Off-Topic Discussion > Parking Lot


Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

Parking Lot


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-28-2009, 05:47 PM   #76
Eternally Legendary
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 34
Posts: 9,876
Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33 View Post
Curious which case MM is not considering based on the list below from CNN. I'm assuming they're not including Ricci. Also which is the second upheld case?

Cases Reviewed by the Supreme Court
• Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008) -- decision pending as of 5/26/2009
• Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007) -- reversed 6-3 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg)
• Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006) -- upheld, but reasoning was unanimously faulted
• Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005) -- reversed 8-0
• Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005) -- reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, Alito)
• Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000) -- reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer)
• Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997) -- reversed 7-2 (Dissenting: Stevens, Breyer)
60% reversal rate is not from MM but rather the ultra conservative Washington Times and one of the perpetrators of the "reversal rate should be a concern" talking point. They don't even cite where they come up with that number (no surprise there) and MM is simply pointing out the reversal rate of the high courts over the last 5 years. Honestly though, one doesn't need to do much research to formulate a rough estimate of high court reversal rate of lower court decisions.
__________________
"The Redskins have always suffered from chronic organizational deformities under Snyder."

-Jenkins

Last edited by saden1; 05-28-2009 at 06:02 PM.
saden1 is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 05-28-2009, 11:53 PM   #77
Playmaker
 
70Chip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Manassas
Age: 43
Posts: 3,048
Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
60% reversal rate is not from MM but rather the ultra conservative Washington Times and one of the perpetrators of the "reversal rate should be a concern" talking point. They don't even cite where they come up with that number (no surprise there) and MM is simply pointing out the reversal rate of the high courts over the last 5 years. Honestly though, one doesn't need to do much research to formulate a rough estimate of high court reversal rate of lower court decisions.
The one that is of concern is the one that says "reason unanimously faulted". Everyone knows that judges make decisions based on their biases, but the good ones find a legal argument to back it up. She doesn't seem to think that's necessary.
__________________
This Monkey's Gone to Heaven
70Chip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2009, 12:53 AM   #78
Franchise Player
 
FRPLG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Age: 35
Posts: 9,935
Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

Quote:
Originally Posted by 70Chip View Post
The one that is of concern is the one that says "reason unanimously faulted". Everyone knows that judges make decisions based on their biases, but the good ones find a legal argument to back it up. She doesn't seem to think that's necessary.
No because she has a richness of heritage and diversity that provides her magical wisdom unencumbered by silly legal reasoning.
FRPLG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2009, 02:05 AM   #79
Eternally Legendary
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 34
Posts: 9,876
Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

Quote:
Originally Posted by 70Chip View Post
The one that is of concern is the one that says "reason unanimously faulted". Everyone knows that judges make decisions based on their biases, but the good ones find a legal argument to back it up. She doesn't seem to think that's necessary.
I have stated just as much (Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS). The irony is, of course, that those who advocate for state rights have forgone such sentiments with respect to Sotomyors ruling in Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch because it does not suite their current desire to justify her deficiency as a Supreme Court candidate.

In times of war one must be willing to use the ammunition of the enemy and fire at will!
__________________
"The Redskins have always suffered from chronic organizational deformities under Snyder."

-Jenkins
saden1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2009, 08:09 AM   #80
Franchise Player
 
FRPLG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Age: 35
Posts: 9,935
Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

I don't have time to educate myself on the case this morning...did she argue it was a states rights type issue and get overturned?
FRPLG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2009, 10:25 AM   #81
Eternally Legendary
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 34
Posts: 9,876
Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

Quote:
Originally Posted by FRPLG View Post
I don't have time to educate myself on the case this morning...did she argue it was a states rights type issue and get overturned?
The crust of her argument was that people should be able to sue under state law. She (they really) also asked the Supreme Court for clarification. You can find the legal grounds for the opinion here.



Quote:
Dabit filed a "breach of fiduciary duty" claim under Oklahoma state law in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma under "diversity grounds" because the parties in the case were from different states. His complaint was moved to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York where more than 120 additional cases against Merrill Lynch were consolidated.

In the suit, Dabit claimed that Merrill Lynch's practices caused certain stocks to trade at "artificially inflated" prices through the use of deceptive devices alleged to be the "hallmarks of stock manipulation."


Section 10(b) of the federal Securities Exchange Act makes it unlawful for any person to use deceptive or manipulative devices "in the connection or sale of any security." Because of a perceived flood of frivolous lawsuits regarding security fraud through state courts, Congress enacted the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA) in 1998, which provides that people must file suits charging securities fraud in federal court where there are stringent, uniform standards.


SLUSA states that any class action lawsuit based on state or local law alleging fraud "in connection with the purchase or sale" or of a stock must be governed by federal law.


...


Judge Sonia Sotomayor [in agreement with her colleagues], wrote that SLUSA should be interpreted very narrowly to apply to only purchasers and sellers.


"We see no clear indication either in the text or the legislative history of SLUSA of a congressional intent to abolish nonpurchaser and nonseller state class action claims," wrote Sotomayer.


Sotomayer seemed to ask for definition of the "in connection with" phrase from the U.S. Supreme Court, writing that the high court has "not yet interpreted this phrase in the context of SLUSA."
__________________
"The Redskins have always suffered from chronic organizational deformities under Snyder."

-Jenkins
saden1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2009, 10:59 AM   #82
Registered User
 
firstdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: chesapeake, va
Age: 50
Posts: 15,818
Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

My problem with her is I know she is a liberal and thats how she will come down on the issues.
firstdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2009, 11:32 AM   #83
Franchise Player
 
FRPLG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Age: 35
Posts: 9,935
Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

Quote:
Originally Posted by firstdown View Post
My problem with her is I know she is a liberal and thats how she will come down on the issues.
She's replacing a liberal...why care? He isn't going to nominate a conservative. We elected him and this is what he gets to do...just like Bush got to nominate Roberts and Alito.
FRPLG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2009, 12:10 PM   #84
Registered User
 
firstdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: chesapeake, va
Age: 50
Posts: 15,818
Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

Quote:
Originally Posted by FRPLG View Post
She's replacing a liberal...why care? He isn't going to nominate a conservative. We elected him and this is what he gets to do...just like Bush got to nominate Roberts and Alito.
Well da, and the left bitched about those. Doesn't mean I have to like it. You were suppose to ask me how I knew she was a liberal.
firstdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2009, 01:16 PM   #85
Pro Bowl
 
Beemnseven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Virginia Beach
Age: 40
Posts: 5,293
Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33 View Post
Curious which case MM is not considering based on the list below from CNN. I'm assuming they're not including Ricci. Also which is the second upheld case?

Cases Reviewed by the Supreme Court
Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008) -- decision pending as of 5/26/2009
Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007) -- reversed 6-3 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg)
Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006) -- upheld, but reasoning was unanimously faulted
Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005) -- reversed 8-0
Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005) -- reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, Alito)
Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000) -- reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer)
Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997) -- reversed 7-2 (Dissenting: Stevens, Breyer)

Not sure how CNN got this information, but FactCheck.org says that she has been overturned just three times by the Supreme Court. Three of her appellate opinions have been overturned, which is 1.3 percent of all that she has written and 60 percent of those reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Normally, the Supreme Court reverses a higher percentage of the cases it hears.
Beemnseven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2009, 02:48 PM   #86
Registered User
 
firstdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: chesapeake, va
Age: 50
Posts: 15,818
Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beemnseven View Post
Not sure how CNN got this information, but FactCheck.org says that she has been overturned just three times by the Supreme Court. Three of her appellate opinions have been overturned, which is 1.3 percent of all that she has written and 60 percent of those reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Normally, the Supreme Court reverses a higher percentage of the cases it hears.
I heard she has had 5 or 6 cases go to the SC and either 2 or 3 over turned and one is still pending.
firstdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2009, 11:04 AM   #87
MVP
 
12thMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: washington, D.C.
Posts: 11,456
Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

Quote:
Originally Posted by FRPLG View Post
I think this infers the opinions of those in the majority are wrong simply because they are in the majority. I'll stand corrected if that's not what was meant.

She did more than just express her unique background. She held it like a flag of honor and basically said it provided her higher qualifications than people of differing backgrounds.

All-in-all none of this matters but I am just amused at how this discussion has gone. She's going to be appointed, she'll be fine as a judge, it doesn't shift the balance of the court. It's why he went this direction with this pick...because those predisposed to fight it will be less inclined to really go hard to the mat since it doesn't matter all that much in the political scheme. Now when one of the 5 conservative leaning judges kicks it he'll go more moderate knowing that the Pubs will fight to the death over it.

Is she liberal? Yeah. What did everyone expect him to do? This is the guy we elected. He gets his shot now.
I wouldn't be so fast to label her as liberal. Besides these titles are old and worn out anyway. But for someone who has sat on panels and voted with her Republican colleagues 95% of the time, has ruled against funding abortion overseas (hardly a liberal position and counter to that of the President's position on the same issue), I would definitely say she's moderate. Probably left of center or on some days right of center.

Last edited by 12thMan; 05-30-2009 at 11:11 AM.
12thMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2009, 03:13 PM   #88
Registered User
 
firstdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: chesapeake, va
Age: 50
Posts: 15,818
Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12thMan View Post
I wouldn't be so fast to label her as liberal. Besides these titles are old and worn out anyway. But for someone who has sat on panels and voted with her Republican colleagues 95% of the time, has ruled against funding abortion overseas (hardly a liberal position and counter to that of the President's position on the same issue), I would definitely say she's moderate. Probably left of center or on some days right of center.
I know for a fact that she is liberal because she has messy hair.
firstdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2009, 04:31 PM   #89
MVP
 
12thMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: washington, D.C.
Posts: 11,456
Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

Quote:
Originally Posted by firstdown View Post
I know for a fact that she is liberal because she has messy hair.
You know on second thought, I think the Prez should rescind his offer.
12thMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2009, 09:14 PM   #90
Playmaker
 
70Chip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Manassas
Age: 43
Posts: 3,048
Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

Quote:
Originally Posted by FRPLG View Post
She's replacing a liberal...why care? He isn't going to nominate a conservative. We elected him and this is what he gets to do...just like Bush got to nominate Roberts and Alito.
The Senate must perform it's advise and consent duty. After all we don't live in a dictatorship. Just ask Robert Bork.

My only hope for this nomination process is that it might dawn on somebody that an organization called "The National Council of The Race", might have some views that are at odds with American values. But then I'm probably hoping beyond hope.
__________________
This Monkey's Gone to Heaven
70Chip is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.36358 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25