This City Councilman Turned a $50K Deal Into a Personal Payday. Now He's...
Meet the Conservative Outsider Who Wants to Bring Common Sense Back to His...
How This Small-Town Police Force Became a 'Criminal Organization'
Iranian Regime's Latest Move Shows How Desperate It Has Become
House Republicans Want to Know Why Ilhan Omar's Income Jumped by 140 Times...
If 'The Only Thing More Powerful Than Hate Is Love' Democrats Missed the...
Elites Did Their Part to Fight Global Warming by Flying Dozens of Private...
Historic: U.S. Marks Ninth Month With Zero Releases at the Border
Man Who Pushed Propaganda About a Young Gazan Boy Slaughtered By The IDF...
Harry Sisson Refuses to House Illegals in His Home, And Claims ICE Agent...
Critics Blast Katie Porter's Pre Super Bowl X Post As She Tries to...
Immigration Win: Federal Court Sides With Trump Admin on TPS Terminations for Multiple...
Federal Judge Blocks California Effort to Demask ICE Agents
Jasmine Crockett Might Be Running the Most Incompetent Campaign in History
WaPo Claims That Bad Bunny's Profane Performance Represented 'Wholesome Family Values'
Tipsheet

Just the Facts, Please

Judge Sotomayor's 60% reversal rate by the Supreme Court is remarkable.  In other words, more than half of the times that she wrote a majority opinion that went to the Supremes on appeal, the highest court in the land said she had gotten it wrong.
Advertisement


There are only two reasons that a judge gets reversed that much.  Either s/he doesn't understand the law, or else refuses to apply it correctly.  It's hard to believe that Judge Sotomayor truly couldn't figure out the law in each of these cases.  Instead, her high reversal rate suggests a willingness-- like that manifested by the oft-reversed Ninth Circuit -- to use the law as an instrument to make policy.

It's worth pointing out that, as a justice, she'll have the chance to do successfully what she apparently tried to do before -- make law from the bench.  There is nothing to constrain a Supreme Court justice in his or her work but an internal commitment to upholding the rule of law -- which means (among other things) pledging impartiality toward litigants, and realizing that the work of judges (even those on the Supreme Court) is supposed to be to interpret the law as it is written, not to rewrite it so as to make it more to their personal liking.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement