I would love it if the conerstaion that was takin from was this:
Sonia: True/False the court of appeals is where policy is made?
Chief Justice Roberts: True?

As the clarifying qoute notes in the article, alot of policy is made in the process of court of appeals rulings, whether it “ought” to be or not. It’s a natural extension of making rulings in areas not directly addressed by existing laws.

that’s a bad one. In the case, 19 white and 1 Hispanic firefighters had passed a qualifying exam for promotions and zero African-Americans had passed it. The city, fearing the political and legal repercussions of the results, threw them out and denied everyone a promotion. By all accounts, there was nothing biased with the test, which had been thoroughly vetted, but the results weren’t politically correct, so they were tossed.

Sotomayor was a judge on the 3 judge panel that reviewed the trial court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of the city. After the panel upheld the trial court’s ruling without publishing much of an opinion, The district court had issued a 48-page opinion and on appeal the parties submitted briefs of eighty-six pages each and a six-volume joint appendix of over 1,800 pages. The Court had affirmed the District Court’s ruling in a summary order containing a single substantive paragraph.

Her conduct in the case received a rebuke by another Clinton appointee, Judge José Cabranes, who wrote:

This per curiam opinion adopted in toto the reasoning of the District Court, without further elaboration or substantive comment, and thereby converted a lengthy, unpublished district court opinion, grappling with significant constitutional and statutory claims of first impression, into the law of this Circuit. It did so, moreover, in an opinion that lacks a clear statement of either the claims raised by the plaintiffs or the issues on appeal. Indeed, the opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at he core of this case, and a casual reader of the opinion could be excused for wondering whether a learning disability played at least as much a role in this case as the alleged racial discrimination.

The case was argued to the SCOTUS this term, and the opinion has yet to be released, though it will be soon. it wouldn’t be surprising to see it reversed in a 5-4 decision.

In legal circles, her behavior was, at best, curious and at worst, impeachable. we don’t know all that went on behind the scenes in the case, but her actions and motivations certainly are worth further investigation, particularly because of her nomination to the Supreme Court. She’s been accused of letting her biases interfere with her role as neutral arbiter in this case – i.e., she was accused of trying to bury the case. If true, she shouldn’t be confirmed.

Number two doesn’t bother me that much. I, being a white male, tend to agree with her.

Obama was helped a lot by this in Western states.

“……the court of appeals is where policy is made,”

To expand on point one – the context of the quote is missing, in that she was comparing the differences between trial courts and appeals courts. In trial courts, the decisions affect a single case or individual whereas an appeals decision sets or reaffirms precedence for all like cases; this ruling is then used for multiple cases and becomes – drum roll please – policy for future decisions. She is not talking about “legislating from the bench” in any way, shape or form, but rather how appeals court decisions can be used by judges in the future to guide decisions down the line. It is recognized as a very benign comment amongst legal scholars.

the comment about latina women would make better choice than a white man

Again, a lot of context missing. It appears after listening to the whole comment – and not just the excerpted quote – she was saying that anyone with similar life experiences to those being referenced in the court cases before them will make a better decision than someone who has not. (Street smarts + book smarts beats book smarts only.) Hardly radical, but her “error” – if any – was including racial designations in place of life experience vs. no life experience. Seems more ‘foot in mouth’ than a racist’s belief of inherent superiority.

She has been reversed 60% by high court

Small sample size and SCOTUS reverses 75% of the cases before them so her miniscule record is actually above average.

because if it had to do about being Latino why did the Democrats quash Miguel Estrada? Estrada argued 15 cases before the Supremes and won 10 of the cases

This is correct.

Also, the 60% figure for Sotomayor is based on a whopping six decisions she’s made that the Supreme Court has ruled on.

SAMPLE SIZE BRASS

Which strongly implies Thomas is also a Yankees fan…

AT BEST!

Why steal an uggly Johnson?