Originally Posted by Dixie
I never said that. Only that Bork's judicial record was better than Sototmayor's. You, not I, have been using the SC cases to argue that her record is worse than Bork'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! Eight Repub senators voted against him. If they had voted for him, he probably would have been confirmed. Ask yourself what would have made the Republicans vote that way.
Now, that being said, why does that same exact standard not apply to Sototmayor? Can you explain that to me? For one thing, the three decisions overturned were cases involving business, not discrimination cases reflecting a Latina viewpoint. Surely you don't believe she is NOT an ideologue? I haven't read her cases so I can't say one way or the other. Did you read all of Bork's cases during the hearings? 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.
I'd like to know how these three cases implied an "ideological decision".
* One was a 5-4 decision in 2001 in Correctional Services Corporation v. Malesko, which involved an inmate who sought to sue a private contractor operating a halfway house on behalf of the Bureau of Prisons over injuries he sustained. Sotomayor said he could, but a majority of the justices disagreed.
* In another case, Sotomayor wrote that under the Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency could not use a cost-benefit analysis to determine the best technology available for drawing cooling water into power plants with minimal impact on aquatic life. By a vote of 6-3 this year, the Supreme Court ruled otherwise in Entergy v. Riverkeeper.
* The third reversal, in 2005, was a unanimous 8-0 decision in the case Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dabit. Sotomayor had written that a class action securities suit brought in state court by a broker/stockholder was not preempted by the 1998 Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act. But the high court's opinion said it "would be odd, to say the least" if the law contained the exception that Sotomayor said it did.
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 need to retain previous post during the discussion, toodles. Once you do that, you can comprehend why her response was quite accurate. If you disagree with what she wrote, then take it up with her point for point. 
"
