Dereliction of Duty

[Taichiliberal]

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.

Stay focused. YOU keep making the statement that since Sotomayor has had 3 decisions overturned (5 SCOTUS reviews), she's not really qualified. All Christie did was point out that some of the great justices of our times have had decisions overturned and reviewed. Christie also gave evidence that when thoroughly examined, Sotomayor's record is NOT out of the ordinary. When she asked you to name any justices that haven't, you balked....now your saying that Bork was nearly perfect in this regard. BUT YOU STILL DIDN'T ANSWER CHRISTIES QUESTION. Funny how you demand answers from others but reserve the right not to answer any questions. Sorry, but fair is fair.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Stay focused. YOU keep making the statement that since Sotomayor has had 3 decisions overturned (5 SCOTUS reviews), she's not really qualified. All Christie did was point out that some of the great justices of our times have had decisions overturned and reviewed. Christie also gave evidence that when thoroughly examined, Sotomayor's record is NOT out of the ordinary. When she asked you to name any justices that haven't, you balked....now your saying that Bork was nearly perfect in this regard. BUT YOU STILL DIDN'T ANSWER CHRISTIES QUESTION. Funny how you demand answers from others but reserve the right not to answer any questions. Sorry, but fair is fair.

I don't understand the question. I presented Bork as a prime example of what we should seek in a Supreme Court Justice, someone who has had no decisions overturned by the SCOTUS and none reviewed, because they simply couldn't be contested on merit. I have no idea about the record of other Justices, this discussion is about the one currently under consideration. And I do believe SCOTUS overruling your decision is an indicator your decision wasn't constitutional. Do you contest that point, yes or no?

 

[Taichiliberal]

I don't understand the question. I presented Bork as a prime example of what we should seek in a Supreme Court Justice, someone who has had no decisions overturned by the SCOTUS and none reviewed, because they simply couldn't be contested on merit. I have no idea about the record of other Justices, this discussion is about the one currently under consideration. And I do believe SCOTUS overruling your decision is an indicator your decision wasn't constitutional. Do you contest that point, yes or no?

Remember, from the link Christie gave, reviews are given for cases that become exceptional to the status quo on some level. So Borks lack of review in and of itself is NOT proof of his level of superior credentials to Sotomayor. This is why Chrisitie's question still stands, because by your standards, there is a higher standard than Bork to meet. But as the link demonstrated, the measuring criteria you use is not an accurate measuring.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Remember, from the link Christie gave, reviews are given for cases that become exceptional to the status quo on some level. So Borks lack of review in and of itself is NOT proof of his level of superior credentials to Sotomayor. This is why Chrisitie's question still stands, because by your standards, there is a higher standard than Bork to meet. But as the link demonstrated, the measuring criteria you use is not an accurate measuring.

Common fucking sense is my criteria for measuring. A decision controversial enough to warrant a SCOTUS review, is suspect, but being overturned by SCOTUS is evidence of constitutional incompetence. Bork had neither a review or decision overturned, and (I think) he had rendered more decisions than Sotomayor, so his record is far superior to hers as far as his obedience to the Constitution. Now, to me, a pragmatic reasonable citizen, this seems to be a valid assessment, can you explain in plain-spoken terms why I am wrong? I don't want a link, I want a valid explanation from you!

 

[Taichiliberal]

Common fucking sense is my criteria for measuring. A decision controversial enough to warrant a SCOTUS review, is suspect, but being overturned by SCOTUS is evidence of constitutional incompetence. Bork had neither a review or decision overturned, and (I think) he had rendered more decisions than Sotomayor, so his record is far superior to hers as far as his obedience to the Constitution. Now, to me, a pragmatic reasonable citizen, this seems to be a valid assessment, can you explain in plain-spoken terms why I am wrong? I don't want a link, I want a valid explanation from you!

Well, since you refuse to do the simple burden of proof that Christie required, then common sense dictates that you are not really interested in putting your assertion to the test. Also, since you refuse to note that very few of Bork's legal successes and failures warranted the attention of the SCOTUS, your "common sense" is at best myopic. That's as plain spoken as I can get....if you cannot or will not understand it, then I can't help you.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Well, since you refuse to do the simple burden of proof that Christie required, then common sense dictates that you are not really interested in putting your assertion to the test. Also, since you refuse to note that very few of Bork's legal successes and failures warranted the attention of the SCOTUS, your "common sense" is at best myopic. That's as plain spoken as I can get....if you cannot or will not understand it, then I can't help you.

No, you are mistaken, there is no burden of proof on me, I made a true statement about Bork, and a valid assertion about the qualifications of a Supreme Court nominee. IF you would like to refute my statement, the burden of proof lies on you. So far you haven't. Instead, you want to moronically insist I prove something... not really sure what. Sotomayor is not qualified to be on the Supreme Court because she has had 3 decisions overturned by the Supreme Court. That is as simple as it gets.

 

[maineman]

No, you are mistaken, there is no burden of proof on me, I made a true statement about Bork, and a valid assertion about the qualifications of a Supreme Court nominee. IF you would like to refute my statement, the burden of proof lies on you. So far you haven't. Instead, you want to moronically insist I prove something... not really sure what. Sotomayor is not qualified to be on the Supreme Court because she has had 3 decisions overturned by the Supreme Court. That is as simple as it gets.

with equal simplicity, by that standard, is Alito qualified to be on the Supreme Court?

 

[NOVA]

with equal simplicity, by that standard, is Alito qualified to be on the Supreme Court?

??? Why...? because he was overturned one time ?

 

[NOVA]

If Christie wants to know of any justices that haven't had decisions overturned, she can use Google....the posters don't owe her an education....
her question is just that...a question...which in itself proves nothing...

 

[maineman]

??? Why...? because he was overturned one time ?

reviewed by SCOTUS twice. overturned BOTH times.

clearly unqualified by Dixie's standard...yet Dixie, nor any other conservative, ever complained about Alito's incompetence by that standard when HE was being confirmed. odd.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

reviewed by SCOTUS twice. overturned BOTH times.

clearly unqualified by Dixie's standard...yet Dixie, nor any other conservative, ever complained about Alito's incompetence by that standard when HE was being confirmed. odd.

It's still a better track record than Sotomayor. Also, Alito was Bush's second pick.

Let's clarify the anatomy of this discussion so far...

Pinheads: Sotomayor only had 3 of 5 decisions overturned by SCOTUS.
Dixie: That in itself should disqualify her. She should have had none.
Pinheads: It's not uncommon for a judges decisions to be overturned.
Dixie: Bork never was overturned or reviewed.
Pinheads: PROVE IT!
Dixie: LOL!
Pinheads: Well, what about Alito? Huh? Huh?
Dixie: What about Alito?
Pinheads: He had two decisions overturned!
Dixie: Better than your pick! And that was Bush's backup!

The reason I introduced Bork is because, in spite of his spotless record, he was completely run out of town and his name made into a verb, meaning what is done to people you see as ideologues from the right. Oh, but we mustn't apply that standard to a liberal appointment, they can be as ideologically left as they want to be, the right doesn't have a verb to run her out of town. It's what we call a "double standard." The rationale and justifications applied to Bork, do not apply to a liberal nutbag. This is why the SCOTUS is now becoming a left-wing fascist agenda imposer, and not what it was designed to be.

 

[Taichiliberal]

No, you are mistaken, there is no burden of proof on me, I made a true statement about Bork, and a valid assertion about the qualifications of a Supreme Court nominee. IF you would like to refute my statement, the burden of proof lies on you. So far you haven't. Instead, you want to moronically insist I prove something... not really sure what. Sotomayor is not qualified to be on the Supreme Court because she has had 3 decisions overturned by the Supreme Court. That is as simple as it gets.

Repeating yourself isn't answering the question or addressing the points put forth. But let me break it down further for you.....no one is contesting Bork's record or Sotomayors with regards to the SCOTUS reviewing/rejecting their cases. What's being put forth are the FACTS that Sotomayor's review record is NOT sub par or sub standard....and that a LACK of cases that make it to the SCOTUS can be viewed as basically standard for ALL judges. This is why Christie's challenge to statements YOU made is valid, and why your refusal to answer does NOT give you license to continue challenging others. Fair is fair.

I'll go one step further: by your one standard here, no one should be appointed to SCOTUS unless they've had at least one case reviewed and approved before them (or whatever number you deem worthy...I don't know of any official one)....that eliminates some pretty high profile members, past & present.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Repeating yourself isn't answering the question or addressing the points put forth. But let me break it down further for you.....no one is contesting Bork's record or Sotomayors with regards to the SCOTUS reviewing/rejecting their cases. What's being put forth are the FACTS that Sotomayor's review record is NOT sub par or sub standard....and that a LACK of cases that make it to the SCOTUS can be viewed as basically standard for ALL judges. This is why Christie's challenge to statements YOU made is valid, and why your refusal to answer does NOT give you license to continue challenging others. Fair is fair.

I'll go one step further: by your one standard here, no one should be appointed to SCOTUS unless they've had at least one case reviewed and approved before them (or whatever number you deem worthy...I don't know of any official one)....that eliminates some pretty high profile members, past & present.

I simply made the perfectly reasonable observation, that a qualified judge to sit on the Supreme Court, wouldn't have had 3 decisions overturned by the Supreme Court. It stands to reason, if the SCOTUS has overturned 3 of your decisions, you most likely have some problem with interpreting the Constitution. That is the only reason the SCOTUS would review and overturn your decision. You can't really "refute" that statement, because it is basic common sense, but damn if you ain't trying like hell!

Now, in case it hasn't really occurred to you, I am not the Supreme Dictator of America, and I don't get to decide who is nominated or chosen to sit on the court. IF I were in charge and had that power, no judge with 3 overturned decisions would qualify. I would call it Dixie's Three Strikes Policy for Justices! But alas, I hold no such power, and can only interject my opinion on an internet message board, same as you. The difference between us is, my opinion follows reasonable common sense, and yours follows political ideology over anything and everything else.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Repeating yourself isn't answering the question or addressing the points put forth. But let me break it down further for you.....no one is contesting Bork's record or Sotomayors with regards to the SCOTUS reviewing/rejecting their cases. What's being put forth are the FACTS that Sotomayor's review record is NOT sub par or sub standard....and that a LACK of cases that make it to the SCOTUS can be viewed as basically standard for ALL judges. This is why Christie's challenge to statements YOU made is valid, and why your refusal to answer does NOT give you license to continue challenging others. Fair is fair.

I'll go one step further: by your one standard here, no one should be appointed to SCOTUS unless they've had at least one case reviewed and approved before them (or whatever number you deem worthy...I don't know of any official one)....that eliminates some pretty high profile members, past & present.

I simply made the perfectly reasonable observation, that a qualified judge to sit on the Supreme Court, wouldn't have had 3 decisions overturned by the Supreme Court. It stands to reason, if the SCOTUS has overturned 3 of your decisions, you most likely have some problem with interpreting the Constitution. No, that means that for those particular cases that reached the SCOTUS only. By your "reasoning", you could have perfectly unqualified or incompetant judges appointed to the SCOTUS because none of their cases ever came before the SC (i.e., Clarence Thomas) That is the only reason the SCOTUS would review and overturn your decision. You can't really "refute" that statement, I never did, and stated such...you're just ignoring that and the other oints I've made because it is basic common sense, but damn if you ain't trying like hell! Either you're not comprehending what I'm writing or you're just ignoring it and repeating yourself ad nauseum. Why, I don't know.

Now, in case it hasn't really occurred to you, I am not the Supreme Dictator of America, and I don't get to decide who is nominated or chosen to sit on the court. Sarcasm is not your strong point, nor does it deflect attention to your lack of concentration on what others write. IF I were in charge and had that power, no judge with 3 overturned decisions would qualify. I would call it Dixie's Three Strikes Policy for Justices! But alas, I hold no such power, and can only interject my opinion on an internet message board, same as you. The difference between us is, my opinion follows reasonable common sense, and yours follows political ideology over anything and everything else.

Aside from the blathering, the last sentence you write cannot be proven beyond your opinion. That you've already demonstrated a penchant for demanding proof from others but absolving yourself of such a responsibility makes your opinion worthless. Common sense, if not logic, should tell you that.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

YOU are what is worthless, as well as your opinion. Apparently, you don't comprehend how the justice system works. Cases reviewed by the SCOTUS were brought to the SCOTUS by way of appeal, because someone felt the decision wasn't constitutional. In Sotomayor's case, three times out of five, the SCOTUS did indeed find her decision to be unconstitutional and overturned it.

 

[Taichiliberal]

YOU are what is worthless, as well as your opinion. Brilliant retort, toodles. Think that one up all by yourself, or did you have help? Apparently, you don't comprehend how the justice system works. Cases reviewed by the SCOTUS were brought to the SCOTUS by way of appeal, because someone felt the decision wasn't constitutional. No shit sherlock.....since when did I ever say or allude that it wasn't done that way? This still doesn't change or disprove my points, or absolve your insipid stubborness. In Sotomayor's case, three times out of five, the SCOTUS did indeed find her decision to be unconstitutional and overturned it.

Like I said before, you just keep parroting what is essentially an acknowledged point, while ignoring everything else. Typical neocon parrot.....pity for you the recorded posts shows your avoidence of any honest debate beyond your mantra. Rant on and look away, look away....look away Dixie man! The last predictable word is yours to revel in.

 

[maineman]

It's still a better track record than Sotomayor. Also, Alito was Bush's second pick.

Let's clarify the anatomy of this discussion so far...

Pinheads: Sotomayor only had 3 of 5 decisions overturned by SCOTUS.
Dixie: That in itself should disqualify her. She should have had none.
Pinheads: It's not uncommon for a judges decisions to be overturned.
Dixie: Bork never was overturned or reviewed.
Pinheads: PROVE IT!
Dixie: LOL!
Pinheads: Well, what about Alito? Huh? Huh?
Dixie: What about Alito?
Pinheads: He had two decisions overturned!
Dixie: Better than your pick! And that was Bush's backup!

The reason I introduced Bork is because, in spite of his spotless record, he was completely run out of town and his name made into a verb, meaning what is done to people you see as ideologues from the right. Oh, but we mustn't apply that standard to a liberal appointment, they can be as ideologically left as they want to be, the right doesn't have a verb to run her out of town. It's what we call a "double standard." The rationale and justifications applied to Bork, do not apply to a liberal nutbag. This is why the SCOTUS is now becoming a left-wing fascist agenda imposer, and not what it was designed to be.

If Sotamayor is unacceptable as a SCOTUS associate justice, so is Alito. You never whined about him but you do about her.
hack.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

If Sotamayor is unacceptable as a SCOTUS associate justice, so is Alito. You never whined about him but you do about her.
hack.

I've already said, if I were in charge, Alito wouldn't have been nominated. In my opinion, if a judge has had a decision overturned by the SCOTUS, it is a good indicator he/she doesn't interpret the Constitution very well. So far, you pinheads can't challenge that, because it just makes too damn much sense, so you are changing the subject to Alito, or whatever the fuck you have to, in order not to talk about the issue. That pretty much tells the story right there, I don't have to say another word.

 

[maineman]

I've already said, if I were in charge, Alito wouldn't have been nominated. In my opinion, if a judge has had a decision overturned by the SCOTUS, it is a good indicator he/she doesn't interpret the Constitution very well. So far, you pinheads can't challenge that, because it just makes too damn much sense, so you are changing the subject to Alito, or whatever the fuck you have to, in order not to talk about the issue. That pretty much tells the story right there, I don't have to say another word.

my point was that you failed to complain about Alito's qualifications at the time and you have no excuse for that clear example of your hypocrisy.

and what do you make of appellate justices who write dissenting minority opinions on cases that are eventually upheld by SCOTUS? Clearly their dissent is an example of a misinterpretation of the constitution.

For that matter, what do you make of the ability of SCOTUS justices to interpret the constitution when they write minority opinions in dissent?

 

[christiefan915]

I am sure that is precisely the reason the Democrat-run Judicial Committee didn't even allow an up or down vote on Bush's nominees. And we can go even further back and check Judge Bork's appellate record against Sotomayor, and I'll bet he had fewer cases reviewed and overturned.

You guys have become the Party of Double Standard, whatever applies to Republicans, simply doesn't apply if we're talking about Democrats. Democrats can excuse and get away with not paying taxes, affairs, sex scandals, racist comments, etc. and it's all swept under the rug, unimportant and insignificant to even attempt to discuss it... but let a Republican get caught, and oh... there is hell to pay!

Saying "I'll bet he had fewer cases reviewed and overturned" is meaningless.

Show me the money.