Dereliction of Duty

[christiefan915]

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.

You asserted that "GOOD judges, GOOD candidates for the SC shouldn't have ANY decisions overturned and very few reviewed." I replied that at least two of our most renowned justices, Holmes and Cardozo, didn't meet the standard you set. As far as I'm concerned, your example of Bork is irrelevant. His nomination was rejected on the basis of his extremism, therefore the Senate decided he wasn't as GOOD a candidate as you would assert, and wouldn't have made a GOOD judge on the court.

 

[christiefan915]

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....

Fact-based detail:

"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..."

"In any case, 60 percent of the cases the Supreme Court has reviewed is not a particularly high number. In any given term, the Supreme Court normally reverses a higher percentage of the cases it hears. During its 2006-2007 term, for instance, the Court reversed or vacated (which, for our purposes here, mean the same thing) 68 percent of the cases before it. The rate was 73.6 percent the previous term..."

Furthermore, in two of the three reversals some of the judges agreed with her holdings and dissented in the opinions.

factcheck.org

Sotomayor had 232 appellate decisions; only 5 (2%) reviewed by SC; 98% of the decisions upheld. Number of decisions reversed lower than the Court average.

This is as good as it gets. Eat your heart out.

 

[christiefan915]

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?

Bork is not and has never been a SC justice. What relevance does he have?

 

[christiefan915]

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.

Not being able to find any overturned decisions isn't the same as he had no decisions overturned.

He's not being asked to prove a negative, he's being asked to cite a source that says "None of Bork's appellate decisions were either reviewed or overturned by the SC".

 

[christiefan915]

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.

Then he brings up Bork, who's not and has never been a justice, and ignores the info about Holmes and Cardozo, who were. He's completely missed the point.

 

[Damocles]

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

Show me the money.

He did, he put it all down. Zero is less. If you can pull up even one decision he had reviewed you show him to be wrong, otherwise every post of yours is just another admission that he is right. Even ones that say "prove it". One cannot prove a negative, but you could certainly prove that he was wrong in his assertion, and very easily. Find one decision of Bork's that was reviewed and overturned and you win.

 

[christiefan915]

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.

"No one has posted a single SCOTUS overruling of a Bork decision, etc." shows
that no one has posted, not that none exist.

It's not proof.

 

[Damocles]

"No one has posted a single SCOTUS overruling of a Bork decision, etc." shows
that no one has posted, not that none exist.

It's not proof.

This is dumb.

Dixie says: Bork has never had an overturned decision.

You say: Post a link to that.

Dixie says: There isn't one because he hasn't had an overturned decision.

You say: Where's my link?

Why the heck would there be a story about Bork's decisions that were overturned if there were no overturned decisions? What do you expect every newspaper to be full of information that didn't happen? Imagine the stories.... "Today Judge Soandso didn't get appealed and was not overturned. More information to follow, if we get any."

Again, you can't prove a negative. Show me evidence that Santa Claus doesn't exist for example...

In order to show he is wrong all you need is one decision of Bork's that was overturned, if there is even one then Dixie is wrong.

 

[christiefan915]

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.

And in two of the three the votes were 5-4 and 6-3, with the dissenters agreeing with Sotomayor.

 

[christiefan915]

This is dumb.

Dixie says: Bork has never had an overturned decision.

You say: Post a link to that.

Dixie says: There isn't one because he hasn't had an overturned decision.

You say: Where's my link?

Why the heck would there be a story about Bork's decisions that were overturned if there were no overturned decisions? What do you expect every newspaper to be full of information that didn't happen? Imagine the stories.... "Today Judge Soandso didn't get appealed and was not overturned. More information to follow, if we get any."

Again, you can't prove a negative. Show me evidence that Santa Claus doesn't exist for example...

In order to show he is wrong all you need is one decision of Bork's that was overturned, if there is even one then Dixie is wrong.

Your analysis is sophomoric. Reference books, articles, etc. are full of examples of what you're arguing doesn't exist. If it's a fact, it would be out there, especially in any article about Bork that praises his record. It's a plain and simple sentence. Example:

"Robert Bork is an excellent candidate for SC justice. The record shows he had x appellate cases and none were either reviewed or overturned by the Supreme Court".

It's no more difficult than checking the entire voting record of a Senator, for example.

 

[christiefan915]

He did, he put it all down. Zero is less. If you can pull up even one decision he had reviewed you show him to be wrong, otherwise every post of yours is just another admission that he is right. Even ones that say "prove it". One cannot prove a negative, but you could certainly prove that he was wrong in his assertion, and very easily. Find one decision of Bork's that was reviewed and overturned and you win.

You're fixated on "proving a negative" and that not what it's about.

Bork has a judicial record. The record shows the outcome of all his decisions. The record would show which, if any, of his decisions were reviewed by the SC.

 

[Damocles]

Your analysis is sophomoric. Reference books, articles, etc. are full of examples of what you're arguing doesn't exist. If it's a fact, it would be out there, especially in any article about Bork that praises his record. It's a plain and simple sentence. Example:

"Robert Bork is an excellent candidate for SC justice. The record shows he had x appellate cases and none were either reviewed or overturned by the Supreme Court".

It's no more difficult than checking the entire voting record of a Senator, for example.

Right.

This answer is as "sophomoric" as one that suggests you can prove a negative.

Did Bork have an overturned decision? If so it would be even easier to find a record of that overturned decision than some article about a Judge that says he is an excellent choice for the SCOTUS and hasn't been overturned, especially one nominated in 1987.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I can't believe this is still going on! Bork was indeed a brilliant example to use in this argument, because here we have a well-qualified judge, with a spotless record, never was reviewed or overturned by the SCOTUS, and yet he was not allowed to be on the court because the Democrats thought him to be too "ideological" and BORKED him! Contrasted with another judge, who has a less than stellar record, 3 of 5 decisions reviewed by the Supreme Court found to be unconstitutional, and a complete ideologue. yet she will sail through confirmation. The stark difference in these two examples, illustrates how Democrats hold a complete double standard when it comes to SCOTUS picks.

We see here, the representatives from the left, don't want to face their hypocrisy, instead, they want to form illogical arguments, demand proof of negatives, and act like total idiots all the way down the line. This incessant stupidity has gone on for two days now, and it's time to put up or shut up. Either explain why Bork wasn't qualified and Sotomayor is, or admit that she is as much of an ideologue as Bork, and the same standard should apply.

 

[christiefan915]

Right.

This answer is as "sophomoric" as one that suggests you can prove a negative.

Did Bork have an overturned decision? If so it would be even easier to find a record of that overturned decision than some article about a Judge that says he is an excellent choice for the SCOTUS and hasn't been overturned, especially one nominated in 1987.

Five minutes on Google and I found the information the rest of you couldn't. Guess according to conservative chuckleheads this simple, straightforward statement of fact means I "proved a negative".

Confirm Judge Bork? `Yes!" . . . `Never!'
Click here for complete article

Date: September 17, 1987
Publication: Chicago Sun-Times
Page: 54
Word Count: 1170
Excerpt:
Robert Bork's record on the U.S. District Court of Appeals places him as a leader in the mainstream of American jurisprudence. Judge Bork has participated in 426 cases and written the majority opinion in 106 instances. It is worth noting that not one of those 106 decisions has ever been reversed by the Supreme Court. Furthermore, of the 401 cases in which Judge Bork joined with the majority, not one has been reversed by the Supreme Court.

Judge Bork dissented from the majority...

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we...page=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

 

[christiefan915]

I can't believe this is still going on! Bork was indeed a brilliant example to use in this argument, because here we have a well-qualified judge, with a spotless record, never was reviewed or overturned by the SCOTUS, and yet he was not allowed to be on the court because the Democrats thought him to be too "ideological" and BORKED him! Contrasted with another judge, who has a less than stellar record, 3 of 5 decisions reviewed by the Supreme Court found to be unconstitutional, and a complete ideologue. yet she will sail through confirmation. The stark difference in these two examples, illustrates how Democrats hold a complete double standard when it comes to SCOTUS picks.

We see here, the representatives from the left, don't want to face their hypocrisy, instead, they want to form illogical arguments, demand proof of negatives, and act like total idiots all the way down the line. This incessant stupidity has gone on for two days now, and it's time to put up or shut up. Either explain why Bork wasn't qualified and Sotomayor is, or admit that she is as much of an ideologue as Bork, and the same standard should apply.

I presume you're suggesting Bork wasn't a complete ideologue.

Only a complete ideologue would believe that.

"A hotly contested United States Senate debate over Bork's nomination ensued, partly fueled by strong opposition by civil and women's rights groups concerned with what they claimed was Bork's desire to roll back civil rights decisions of the Warren and Burger courts. Bork is one of only three Supreme Court nominees to ever be opposed by the ACLU, along with William Rehnquist and Samuel Alito.[14] Bork was also criticized for being an "advocate of disproportionate powers for the executive branch of Government, almost executive supremacy,"[8] as allegedly demonstrated by his role in the Saturday Night Massacre."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I presume you're suggesting Bork wasn't a complete ideologue.

I never said that. Only that Bork's judicial record was better than Sototmayor's. He was "Borked" because Democrats thought him to be too much of an ideologue. I personally think he was a Constitutional Originalist, evidenced by the fact that his decisions weren't reviewed or overturned by the SCOTUS. It is obvious a lot of people viewed him as an ideologue, because that was the ONLY reason for not confirming him to the court!

Now, that being said, why does that same exact standard not apply to Sototmayor? Can you explain that to me? Surely you don't believe she is NOT an ideologue? I know you can't actually think she would rule without regard to her personal ideology, because we know for a fact, that in at least three instances, her ideological decision had to be overturned by the SCOTUS because it wasn't constitutional.

So, either you can answer my question, or you can continue to dodge the questions by drumming up other absurd arguments designed solely to distract and derail the questions. Since I don't really expect you pinheads to be honest and admit you hold a double standard, and that Sototmayor is as much (if not more) of an ideologue than Bork, I anticipate more of this same idiotic diversion and distraction, and total refusal to accept the facts or answer the questions.

 

[Bonestorm]

I never said that. Only that Bork's judicial record was better than Sototmayor's. He was "Borked" because Democrats thought him to be too much of an ideologue. I personally think he was a Constitutional Originalist, evidenced by the fact that his decisions weren't reviewed or overturned by the SCOTUS. It is obvious a lot of people viewed him as an ideologue, because that was the ONLY reason for not confirming him to the court!

Now, that being said, why does that same exact standard not apply to Sototmayor? Can you explain that to me? Surely you don't believe she is NOT an ideologue? I know you can't actually think she would rule without regard to her personal ideology, because we know for a fact, that in at least three instances, her ideological decision had to be overturned by the SCOTUS because it wasn't constitutional.

So, either you can answer my question, or you can continue to dodge the questions by drumming up other absurd arguments designed solely to distract and derail the questions. Since I don't really expect you pinheads to be honest and admit you hold a double standard, and that Sototmayor is as much (if not more) of an ideologue than Bork, I anticipate more of this same idiotic diversion and distraction, and total refusal to accept the facts or answer the questions.

You couldn't find your ass with both hands in your back pockets.

Bork was rejected because his view were outside of the mainstream. Sotomayor will be confirmed because her views are not outside of the mainstream. It's really quite simple.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Bork was rejected because his view were outside of the mainstream. Sotomayor will be confirmed because her views are not outside of the mainstream. It's really quite simple.

funny, I always thought that a justice should be nominated for ruling according to the constitution, not how the majority feels about an issue or ideas. no wonder we've been fucking up the country the last 80 years.

 

[Bonestorm]

funny, I always thought that a justice should be nominated for ruling according to the constitution, not how the majority feels about an issue or ideas. no wonder we've been fucking up the country the last 80 years.

Well, I'm glad I could help you out.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You couldn't find your ass with both hands in your back pockets.

Bork was rejected because his view were outside of the mainstream. Sotomayor will be confirmed because her views are not outside of the mainstream. It's really quite simple.

Personal views should have absolutely NOTHING to do with ruling whether something IS or ISN'T Constitutional! If that WERE the case, we wouldn't even need a Constitution, just a panel of judges who decided cases on the merits of their own personal opinion, is that what you think we should do in America? I certainly don't!

Now, since you bring it up, let's TALK about the "mainstream" a bit... Is partial birth abortion supported by the mainstream? Is gay marriage supported by the mainstream? Liberal activist judges like Sototmayor, simply DO NOT represent mainstream American values. You can THINK that all you like, but it's just not so. 80% of us don't support gay marriage or partial birth abortion, THAT IS THE MAINSTREAM VIEW! Sotomayor represents the view OUTSIDE of the mainstream, as do all liberals.