First off let me say this: I really do not have an opinion one way or another on this judge...cuz I do not care enough to study up on all of the nuances and jargon that comes with law...it has to do with my least favorite species next to fungus gnats...humans.
I often get lured into these threads by what I find to be ridiculous statements made by the "conservatives" on here...which I find to be wholly oxymoronic....pothead republicans...well I guess it makes as much since as the Log Cabin repukes and blue collar, union or farm workers in Kansas voting against their best interests...
Okay, let's use a bit of logic and actual CORRECT statistical analysis, shall we?
Ok choose your voodoo...a "t" test? Chi squared? z-test? the f-distribution? ANOVA?...the mean of the mean of the means? Statistics can be used to say just about whatever you want...but I do not think this is what you meant
Your article from the left leaning Huffington (and that's fine) already confirms my foundational point....which you "thought" smelled. It did not...so give me a bit of credit (she does have a 60% overturn rate).
Ok credit given...not everything that stinks is sh1t...I like brussel sprouts!
Okay, the real meat of the defense is that 60% of the cases before the Supreme Court get overturned anyways.
I think it is actually 75%...which makes her BETTER than most.
Besides...It is the whole point of the system.
The fact that she had anything to do with it...(remember Appellate court!) means it was already controversial...the fact that it went to the highest court in the land for further review...even more so...The cases that were overturned...conservative judges sided with her! But conservatives feel like it is their turn to bitch and moan...point is her overturn rate is lower than the average.
But THAT 60% is not the same as Soto's 60% son. The Supreme courts 60% is for ALL cases before them, from MANY lower court judges. But Soto hits the high water mark of 60% overturn ALL BY HERSELF!! They lead you to believe that the Supreme Court % is an average...it is not. Soto's is the average and that is a HORRENDOUS number to have and be considered for the Supreme Court.
It's a statistical trick they are spinning in the defense.
The supreme court does not here cases willy-nilly from lower court judges...and NO NO NO NO the statistical spin is being done by either you, or I imagine FOX and FRIENDS (EIB)...So if it were an "average" we would be talking about the "statistics" you mentioned earlier...so say one judge has a case reversed...100% reversal rate for this guy...another has 2 cases...one overturned one not...50% over turned...the average would be 75%....Of course they are not doing this...#of cases overturned/# of cases heard. Soto's is just a straight average (what else would you suggest she be compared to for this stat?) # of Soto cases overturned/ # heard...
What are we averaging here anyway...an average is a comparison of different #'s (a mean) we are only looking at, again, cases overturned over cases heard = 3/5....we can extrapolate this into per/100cases and express as 60%
If we were "averaging" we would be comparing overturned to not overturned....kinda like yes/no...so we would have 3 yes/2 no...if yes/no=1...then 3 yes+2 no/(5[yes/no]) = yes(overturned)...but we often express this ratio of win/lost, hit/swing...as a percent.
The only thing misleading about the stat in this case is the way the Fox News is using words to confuse christian conservative sheeple in the heartland...this is a joke!
It's her insistence of injecting her bias into her rulings which get her overturned, time and again.
Statistics are a very easy way to mislead the casual reader......
I want a judge who has a heart and a mind....not a robot. Not every case is black and white...the last sentence is indeed...TBT!
You know at one time due to the laws of our land that women were not aloud to vote? And Black people were considered property. You get the point. Without peoples viewpoints being used to alter the documents the smart money is on to hold up for a looong time we would be right up there with the freedoms in some of the countries we are fighting.
Exactly
Now here is a column from Richard Cohen who if you follow politics at all, know he is on the left. Even he gets it......[...]
Don't get me wrong. She is fully qualified. She is smart and learned and experienced and, in case you have not heard, a Hispanic, female nominee, of which there has not been any since the dawn of our fair republic. But she has no cause, unless it is not to make a mistake, and has no passion, unless it is not to show any[...]
In the meantime, Sotomayor will do, and will do very nicely
Although she was not this guys first choice...it sure does not sound like he thinks "It's her insistence of injecting her bias into her rulings which get her overturned, time and again."....like I said before I am no scholar of the law or this judge...I think ALL judges suck ass...who do they think they are? anyway...whose bias do you use?
edit: these are Richard Cohen's words "as a personification of what ails the American left. She is, as everyone has pointed out, in the mainstream of American liberalism, a stream both intellectually shallow and preoccupied with the past. We have a neat summary of it in the recent remarks of Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin, D-Md., who said he wanted a Supreme Court justice "who will continue to move the court forward in protecting ... important civil rights." He cited cases involving 8nthe shooting of a gay youth, the gang rape of a lesbian and the murder of a black man -- in other words, violence based on homophobia and racism. Yes. But who nowadays disagrees?
What, though, about a jurist who can advance the larger cause of civil rights and at the same time protect individual rights? This was the dilemma raised by the New Haven firefighters' case. The legal mind who could have found a "liberal" way out of the thicket would be deserving of a Supreme Court seat. As an appellate judge, Sotomayor did not even attempt such an exercise. She punted.
She was similarly disappointing on capital punishment. She seems to support it. Yet it is an abomination. It grants the government a right it should never have, one that has been abused over the years by despots, potentates and racist cops. It is always an abuse of power, always an exercise in arrogance -- it admits no possibility of a mistake -- and totally without efficacy. It is not a deterrent and it endorses the mentality of the killer: Human life is not inviolate."
From what I understand...Soto is pretty mainstream...this guy is not...though I may agree with this guy on capital punishment...it is because I do not trust judges or 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty...Just because somebody is an old liberal...does not mean that they are not old racists...the white firefighter thing and latino woman thing suggests covert racism in the foundation of some of their thoughts. Again she sounds quite moderate...what in the world do conservative expect during this administration? Keeping the court balanced is really the most important thing...if it leans to the left with compassion and forward thought we are all better off.
Conservatives just want to reverse Roe v. Wade to protect all those precious babies they care nothing about.
...yeah, I know....................................