'Iron Lung' and the Future of Filmmaking
These Athletes Are Getting Paid to Shame Their Own Country at the Olympics
WaPo CEO Resigns Days After Laying Off 300 Employees
Georgia's Jon Ossoff Says Trump Administration Imitates Rhetoric of 'History's Worst Regim...
U.S. Thwarts $4 Million Weapons Plot Aimed at Toppling South Sudan Government
Minnesota Mom, Daughter, and Relative Allegedly Stole $325k from SNAP
Michigan AG: Detroit Man Stole 12 Identities to Collect Over $400,000 in Public...
Does Maxine Waters Really Think Trump Will Be Bothered by Her Latest Tantrum?
Fifth Circuit Rules That Some Illegal Aliens Can Be Detained Without Bond Until...
Just Days After Mass Layoffs, WaPo Returns to Lying About the Trump Admin
Nigerian Man Sentenced to Over 8 Years for International Inheritance Fraud Targeting Elder...
Florida's Crackdown on Non-English Speaking Drivers Is Hilarious
Family Fraud: Father, Two Daughters Convicted in $500k USDA Nutrition Program Scam
American Olympians Bash Their Own Country As Democrats and Media Gush
Speculation Into Iran Strike Continues As Warplanes Are Pulled From Super Bowl Flyover...
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