Did Sotomayor 'Save Baseball'? George Will Takes Issue

Both Obama and Sotomayor are flaming racists
Posted by: Texas

just a little bit curious, could you give me an enhanced definition of 'flaming racists',

I know there were generic racists like the KKK who were against civil rights, jews, non-catholics, etc... just about everyone who wasn't them..
but you have a newer term I'm not familiar with so I'd appreciate the edification.

Sotomayor is an angry Marxist intellectual lightweight, not tomention a racist and sexist. Hey, no wonder the Obominator chose her.

'The lady is not qualified, just like Obama. Discuss facts here.'
Former_Democrat

'facts' eh? ROTFLMAO

Sotomayor's reported 60 percent reversal rate is lower than the overall Supreme Court reversal rate for all lower court decisions from the 2004 term through the present -- both overall and for each individual Supreme Court term.

She's been overturned on over 60% of her decisions. She belongs to a racist organization, La Raza. She believes in ruling on cases by empathy instead of by rule of law. The lady is not qualified, just like Obama. Discuss facts here. She is a poor judge, Obama did this because he knows that anyone who opposes her, the liberals can call a racist, when it is she that is a racist. Any person that votes for her should be removed from office for incompetence.

It is said that Judge Sotomayor if she passes the Confirmation hearings will be the FIRST Latina that will be on the Supreme Court of the United States. But what of Benjamin Cardozo?? He was on the bench of Supreme Court May 14, 1932 to July 9, 1938!!!

Granted he is of Portuguese descent, but also a Morronos Jew as were allot from that section of the world. Morronos Jew = Swine, Converso... Forced Conversion ... during the Spanish Inquisition and Crusades... usually the Crusader held a sword to their throat and said ... Convert or Die, or words to that effect.

could it be that the administration is hiding facts??... I bet Ben is turning in his grave.

Saving baseball makes one uniquely qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. Both are as American as apple pie.

I can but agree totally with the comments posted by letter. I myself are an american of mexicn decent and i do think that sotomayor would try to be a actvist from the bench

Following up on my post below:

I've read that Sotomayor was reversed in 3 of 5 of her decisions that were appealed to the Supreme Court, not 5 of 6. And I've read that the Supreme Court's reversal rate is 75% (probably for the reasons I stated below). So even if one were to give credence to the sample size, which by the way is far too small to make any serious statistical conclusions (five or six coin flips is not nearly enough to determine whether you've got a "fair" coin), she'd be doing just fine.

Sorry that was until 1968 only two teams were allowed into the playoffs. 1969 was the start of the "playoff system". SO the vast majority of baseball history only two teams made the playoffs. I think it more apt to compare apples and apples, don't you?

Ryan C you are making a false analogy with the "how many teams made the playoffs" argument.. From 1900 to 1962 only two teams (one from each league) ever made the playoffs. The only standard to use in comparing different eras is to look at the one constant: how many different teams actually made the WS. More did so, at least as a percentage of total teams fielded during the '30s, '40s, and '50s then did so from '95 to '01. Even '49 to '55 five out of 16 teams (31 percent) made the WS.

I'm not sure what reforms George Will is talking about, but I never brought that up in any of my posts, nor was it ever a part of my argument (Don't confuse me for Will). However I do recall the issue of contraction being on the table in 2002, and MLB's antitrust exemption being threatened. Also I think the Collective Bargining Agreement expired then and had to be re-negotiated. I'm not sure about that though.

You should probably send an email to George Will, who has a column and written several books on baseball. Which is why he is probably a more trusted source of info then some anonymous guy on the internet.

J House:"The President's pick has been overruled 5 out of 6 times by the Supreme Court, yet she is the best the President could come up with?"

This is grossly misleading on two counts. First, the Supreme Court doesn't usually take cases from lower courts unless it thinks the lower court was wrong, or unless there's a split in the lower courts that needs to be resolved. Since it usually won't take a lower court case just to affirm, there may be a selection bias for cases to reverse. So getting most of one's cases reversed may not be unusual.

Second, one has to look at why the cases were reversed. It could be that the lower judge was following precedent at the time (either from prior circuit level decisions or from older Supreme Court decisions), and it's the Supreme Court that decided to be "activist," not the lower court.

So to say an appellate judge was reversed at the Supreme Court level 5 out of 6 times doesn't really tell you much--unless you're just looking to score superficial political points without trying to dig deeper into the facts.

Sotomayer saved baseball, Gore invented the internet, and Obama saved the world.

Delusions of grandeur.

"Sotomayor's statements and actions are sexist and racist, no matter how you spin them!"

Actions?

You have a single statement in which actual racists like Rush Limbaugh call racist.

"Those who fail to recognize that fact only demonstrate that they themselves are sexist and racist."

"Judges are NOT supposed to be partisan or racist"

Unless appointed by Republicans,

See Charles W. Pickering Sr.

Ryan C., I agree with you. Sotomayor's statements and actions are sexist and racist, no matter how you spin them! Those who fail to recognize that fact only demonstrate that they themselves are sexist and racist.

What the public is entitled to expect is that judges will apply the law neutrally, according to established principles.
Posted by: letter

'established principles' said it was OK to have slaves and discriminate against women and 'gays', and that there could be no 'interracial' marriage.

the President can ignore just about any legislation he/she would choose to using 'signing statements'.

sisterdearest09, do you understand white males? Do you understand Indian males? Should we appoint judges because they understand white males, or black males, or purple males?! Judges are NOT supposed to be partisan or racist. I'm a latino woman myself, but I don't want a racist to be appointed Supreme Court judge!

Sotomayor discusses “the law” without distinguishing meaningfully between the legislature’s role in making law and the judiciary’s role in applying it. For example, she asserts:

The public expects the law to be static and predictable. The law, however, is uncertain and responds to changing circumstances.

What the public is entitled to expect is that judges will apply the law neutrally, according to established principles. That’s a large part of what the “rule of law” means. It’s the province of legislatures to change the law to “respond to changing circumstances.”

No white man/woman can really understand and relate to the lives of any minorities in this country!!!!

Judge Sotomayer is not a racist but a latina woman that spoke the TRUTH!!!!