UNL Student Government Passes SJP-Backed Israel Divestment Resolution
How Long Can America Go on Like This?
Intrusive Bankers and Government Overreach
Trump’s America First Dealmaking on AI Export Controls
Washington Post Layoffs Mark Long-Awaited Decline of Regime Media
Biology and Common Sense Triumph Over Radical Transgender Ideology
Respect the Badge. Enforce the Law but Fix the System.
In the Super Bowl of Drug Ads, Trump’s FDA Plays the Long Game...
From Open Borders to Ruinous Powderkegs
New Musical Remakes Anne Frank As a Genderqueer Hip-Hop Star
Toledo Man Indicted for Threatening to Kill Vice President JD Vance During Ohio...
Fort Lauderdale Financial Advisor Sentenced to 20 Years for $94M International Ponzi Schem...
FCC Is Reportedly Investigating The View
Illegal Immigrant Allegedly Used Stolen Identity to Vote and Collect $400K in Federal...
$26 Billion Gone: Stellantis Joins Automakers Retreating From EVs
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