Dereliction of Duty

Dixie said:
Here's the thing, if she were a truly FAIR AND IMPARTIAL judge, and appropriate to represent the views of most Americans, she wouldn't have had ANY decisions overturned, or ANY reviewed! Her decisions would be sound and reasonable and there would be no purpose for review. A truly GREAT justice, would be someone who followed the rule of law and Constitution so vigorously, it couldn't be challenged with review.

So what you have presented is.... Sotomayor has so botched Constitutional interpretations as to cause a review five times and had been found incompetent three times. Yet, she is somehow "qualified" to sit on the highest court in all the land?
Click to expand...

Truly great justices like Benjamin Cardozo and Oliver Wendell Holmes, who've had decisions overturned?

Name one SC justice who wasn't reviewed and challenged. Please.
 
christiefan915 said:
Truly great justices like Benjamin Cardozo and Oliver Wendell Holmes, who've had decisions overturned?

Name one SC justice who wasn't reviewed and challenged. Please.
Click to expand...

Why the fuck do you pinheads keep challenging me to find information for you? Go look it up yourself and post the links to it here, if you think you have an argument, it's not my place to do your research! Being reviewed and being overturned are two completely different things anyway, so what is your point?

As I said, a GOOD judge, a GOOD candidate for the Supreme Court, shouldn't have ANY decisions overturned, and very few (if any) reviewed. When you go by the letter of the Constitution in your decisions, there is nothing to really challenge, hence, no reviews. Now if you just want to be idiotic and anal, go ahead, but what I have stated should be fucking common sense to anyone with half a brain.
 
Dixie said:
Why the fuck do you pinheads keep challenging me to find information for you? Go look it up yourself and post the links to it here, if you think you have an argument, it's not my place to do your research! Being reviewed and being overturned are two completely different things anyway, so what is your point?

As I said, a GOOD judge, a GOOD candidate for the Supreme Court, shouldn't have ANY decisions overturned, and very few (if any) reviewed. When you go by the letter of the Constitution in your decisions, there is nothing to really challenge, hence, no reviews. Now if you just want to be idiotic and anal, go ahead, but what I have stated should be fucking common sense to anyone with half a brain.
Click to expand...

This lack of knowing how to use google to find their own supporting information by so many liberals is truly amazing eh?
 
christiefan915 said:
False. Apparently it's too much for conservatives to spend five minutes checking rush's claims.

Q: What percentage of Sonia Sotomayor's opinions have been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court? Have Judge Sotomayor's decisions really been overturned 80 percent of the time as Rush Limbaugh stated on May 26?

A: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.

Of the majority opinions that Judge Sonia Sotomayor has authored since becoming an appellate judge in 1998, three of them have been overturned by the Supreme Court.

Our search for appellate opinions by Sotomayor on the LexisNexis database returned 232 cases. That's a reversal rate of 1.3 percent.

But only five of her decisions have been reviewed by the justices. Using five as a denominator, the rate comes out to 60 percent.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_percentage_of_sonia_sotomayors_opinions_have.html
Click to expand...

You're wasting your time, you know. Neocon parrots are all flustered because the media noise machine they enjoyed for 8 years isn't selling to the American public anymore. So essentially, they just hype on headlines and ignore the fact based details. They'll be doing such for the next 3 1/2 years.
 
Sotomayor has so botched Constitutional interpretations as to cause a review five times and had been found incompetent three times.

Is that right Dixie? Not difficult a claim to understand....sounds exactly like a......... fact based detail

5 reviews...3 overturned.....simple enough.....

shes incompetent to serve on the SC...but sadly, she probably will....
 
bravo said:
Sotomayor has so botched Constitutional interpretations as to cause a review five times and had been found incompetent three times.

Is that right Dixie? Not difficult a claim to understand....sounds exactly like a......... fact based detail

5 reviews...3 overturned.....simple enough.....

shes incompetent to serve on the SC...but sadly, she probably will....
Click to expand...

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec...ions_have.html
 
Dixie said:
I just made the casual comment that I bet Bork had fewer cases reviewed and overturned. I didn't state that as a fact, I don't know what the fact is. But since you want to challenge what I said, I did some research, and I can't find a single case where the SCOTUS overturned a Bork decision, so he had ZERO to Sotomayor's THREE. I don't know how many of his decisions have been reviewed and upheld.

So here's what you need to do, if you want to challenge what I said, go find where Bork had at least 3 decisions overturned and at least 5 reviewed, that will prove I was incorrect and I will apologize. If you can't produce that, I will be expecting an apology from you for making the challenge.
Click to expand...

you made the statement. I said prove it or retract it. I'll wait.
 
Dixie said:
Why the fuck do you pinheads keep challenging me to find information for you? Go look it up yourself and post the links to it here, if you think you have an argument, it's not my place to do your research! Being reviewed and being overturned are two completely different things anyway, so what is your point?

As I said, a GOOD judge, a GOOD candidate for the Supreme Court, shouldn't have ANY decisions overturned, and very few (if any) reviewed. When you go by the letter of the Constitution in your decisions, there is nothing to really challenge, hence, no reviews. Now if you just want to be idiotic and anal, go ahead, but what I have stated should be fucking common sense to anyone with half a brain.
Click to expand...

"...A truly GREAT justice, would be someone who followed the rule of law and Constitution so vigorously, it couldn't be challenged with review."

Thanks. You've just confirmed that conservative chuckleheads will throw out any preposterous comment without using a single citation to back up their asinine claims.

If judges went by the letter of the Constitution from Day One, there'd be no such thing as selective incorporation or case law. :readit:
 
christiefan915 said:
Looks like Dixie's another one who's "not required to give information." :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Tell me about it! That seems to be standard among the conservative crowd on these boards (I'm talking the new folks, not the clowns that came over from the AOL board). They opinions and suppositions as bonafide fact...and ignore any challenge that might contradict their "conclusions".

Anyway, I find that this board has quickly devolved to what was going on at the AOL board. A pity....I thought the "rules" would put on the brakes at some point. Oh well, the beat goes on.

Incidently....good job with the fact based counters to all the neocon bullshit.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Tell me about it! That seems to be standard among the conservative crowd on these boards (I'm talking the new folks, not the clowns that came over from the AOL board). They opinions and suppositions as bonafide fact...and ignore any challenge that might contradict their "conclusions".

Anyway, I find that this board has quickly devolved to what was going on at the AOL board. A pity....I thought the "rules" would put on the brakes at some point. Oh well, the beat goes on.

Incidently....good job with the fact based counters to all the neocon bullshit.
Click to expand...

Thanks. :)

And I agree, there's just as much if not more insult going on here, except that here it tends toward Quien es mas macho.
 
I already gave you pinheads information! Sotomayor had 5 decisions reviewed and 3 overturned by the SCOTUS, and Bork had NONE! What the fuck can I show you to confirm NONE? There is nothing to show! If you can find a case Bork had overturned by the SCOTUS, by all means, post it here and prove me wrong! It's not up to me to validate what I said, it's a fucking fact, and you can't refute it or find anything to contradict what I said. If you could, you most certainly would, but you can't. Instead, you want to dishonestly attempt to change the tone of the argument to Dixie, and why he isn't posting like you want him to. Lie and distort, lie and distort... that's all the fuck you idiots know, isn't it?
 
maineman said:
you made the statement. I said prove it or retract it. I'll wait.
Click to expand...

I made A statement, not the one you attributed to me, but I researched it anyway, and found that Bork actually didn't have any decisions overturned by the SCOTUS. I presented that fact here, and now you want what? Proof? Hell, tell me how I prove that? The man had no decisions overturned by the SCOTUS!

Google Search

That's about the best I can do, there isn't a damn thing on the web about any Bork decision ever being overturned or even reviewed. Plenty of liberal bullshit about what they anticipated HE might overturn, had he been appointed to the SCOTUS, but nothing about his decisions being reviewed or overturned. So if what you are asking for, doesn't exist, how can I show you proof?

I think what you need to do, is put your E-penis back in your pants, maineperv, and be man enough to admit you shot your smart-ass mouth off before thinking. You don't demand things from me punk, you have no fucking power or authority over me, and you can go fuck yourself for all I care. This is just the latest in a long line of instances where you refuse to admit you were wrong, and insist on stubbornly trying to intimidate someone into "proving" themselves to you.
 
Taichiliberal said:
You're wasting your time, you know. Neocon parrots are all flustered because the media noise machine they enjoyed for 8 years isn't selling to the American public anymore. So essentially, they just hype on headlines and ignore the fact based details. They'll be doing such for the next 3 1/2 years.
Click to expand...

It appears YOU are the morons who are ignoring facts here, not me.
 
Dixie said:
I made A statement, not the one you attributed to me, but I researched it anyway, and found that Bork actually didn't have any decisions overturned by the SCOTUS. I presented that fact here, and now you want what? Proof? Hell, tell me how I prove that? The man had no decisions overturned by the SCOTUS!

Google Search

That's about the best I can do, there isn't a damn thing on the web about any Bork decision ever being overturned or even reviewed. Plenty of liberal bullshit about what they anticipated HE might overturn, had he been appointed to the SCOTUS, but nothing about his decisions being reviewed or overturned. So if what you are asking for, doesn't exist, how can I show you proof?

I think what you need to do, is put your E-penis back in your pants, maineperv, and be man enough to admit you shot your smart-ass mouth off before thinking. You don't demand things from me punk, you have no fucking power or authority over me, and you can go fuck yourself for all I care. This is just the latest in a long line of instances where you refuse to admit you were wrong, and insist on stubbornly trying to intimidate someone into "proving" themselves to you.
Click to expand...

the best you can do does not show me anything that lists Bork's appellate opinions and their fivnal dispositions. sorry. and I am not demanding anything Dixie... I merely point out that you made a claim, and I have yet to see you substantiate it. Additionally, your standard for judges that any opinions overturned by a higher court are evidence of incompetence is one that you are clearly unwilling to apply to judges nominated by your hero in bluejeans... I think Samuel Alito has had two opinions reviewed and BOTH of them were overturned by SCOTUS... yet I don't recall your opposition to HIS nomination. Why is that?

And why do you feel compelled to gratuitously insult?
 
maineman said:
the best you can do does not show me anything that lists Bork's appellate opinions and their fivnal dispositions. sorry. and I am not demanding anything Dixie... I merely point out that you made a claim, and I have yet to see you substantiate it. Additionally, your standard for judges that any opinions overturned by a higher court are evidence of incompetence is one that you are clearly unwilling to apply to judges nominated by your hero in bluejeans... I think Samuel Alito has had two opinions reviewed and BOTH of them were overturned by SCOTUS... yet I don't recall your opposition to HIS nomination. Why is that?

And why do you feel compelled to gratuitously insult?
Click to expand...
This is silly. If you believe he is wrong a simple google search could prove that, instead you go on about how he can't prove a negative?

And yes, I'd say the same thing about somebody "demanding proof" of some factual statement that could be disproven, but not proven, that you made. Is the judge he mentioned indeed never been overturned by the SCOTUS?

He provided a link to a search that he made, let's see if you can find him factually incorrect.
 
Dixie said:
It appears YOU are the morons who are ignoring facts here, not me.
Click to expand...

It "appears" that way to you because you IGNORE crucial facts that contradict your assertions. Case in point, Christiefan goes to the source of information and presents valid facts....of which you ignore and just repeat your initial contentions. And when challenged with the burden of proof for some of your assertions, you refuse. Logically, you've been proven wrong. That you acknowledge this is irrelevent.
 
Taichiliberal said:
It "appears" that way to you because you IGNORE crucial facts that contradict your assertions. Case in point, Christiefan goes to the source of information and presents valid facts....of which you ignore and just repeat your initial contentions. And when challenged with the burden of proof for some of your assertions, you refuse. Logically, you've been proven wrong. That you acknowledge this is irrelevent.
Click to expand...

Christiefan presented the fact that Sototmayor has had 3 decisions overturned of the 5 which have been reviewed by the SCOTUS. MY point was, she shouldn't have had ANY overturned, and very few if ANY reviewed... like Judge Bork! I was challenged on Bork, but let the record continue to show, no one has posted a single SCOTUS overruling of a Bork decision, and not even a review of one. I stated a true fact, and it is not my obligation to prove that, it is your obligation to prove it false if you want to claim it's false. So, no, logically, I haven't been proven wrong.
 
Dixie said:
Christiefan presented the fact that Sototmayor has had 3 decisions overturned of the 5 which have been reviewed by the SCOTUS. MY point was, she shouldn't have had ANY overturned, and very few if ANY reviewed... like Judge Bork! I was challenged on Bork, but let the record continue to show, no one has posted a single SCOTUS overruling of a Bork decision, and not even a review of one. I stated a true fact, and it is not my obligation to prove that, it is your obligation to prove it false if you want to claim it's false. So, no, logically, I haven't been proven wrong.
Click to expand...

Forget it.
He doesn't have enough spine to admit that he's in error.
You would have better results, by :wall:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top