Sonia Sotomayor 'Reversal Rate' Attack Debunked

Why?

How about this: Tommy is in the White House Press Corps. Maybe this, you might not agree with him, but, AOL and a helluva lot of readers do. Why should I read your comment or respond? Just to set your cowardly ass straight. You are the prime example of why the internet is a double edged sword. This could be any writer and it happens on all sides. Utter lack of respect for the author. Someone who creates. And you shit on it without cause. I'd love to know, how far in life do you get when you write checks your mouth can't cash?

You haven't the slightest concept of what it means to create something, publish it, go the White House, get paid for your work or anything of the sort. Your shot isn't a shot at Tommy. It's a shot at writing in general and specifically a shot to AOL.

You don't know him. You don't know if he has a family or if he does if they read it. I'll just say it. You're a pussy. Here's why: You don't have the stones to say that to his face or any reporter you were to ever meet live. You use the internet as a weapon to cower behind because you don't have the balls to say shit to anyone's face. Go do something significant in your life before you wantonly toss out baseless accusations. You don't know what a freelance writer is? That's because you can't even hit a google button.

By the way, I love how you respond to not one shred of the analysis in the article. Who are you? Why the fuck should I give a squat on what you say. You could be any asshole attacking any writer with the same baseless bowel movement you call "writing."

Eat me. These people get paid for their work. What if someone came into your workplace (that's if you have a job) and took a huge steamer in it? Or maybe, just maybe, knew who you were and treated you in kind.

You're an imbecile and a genital wart on cyberspace. The jerk I laugh at who probably should be a Democrat and on welfare. Certainly, you don't respect a person's livelihood. You make no substantive points. Not one. Hard sniping from the glow from your Mom's bed.

"hycliff - The percentages are what they are. She's been reversed 60% of the time. The fact that her other decisions weren't reversed is meaningless, since most litigants do not have the resources to fight, all the way to the Supreme Court"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Meaningless?? I think not!!
The Supremes will not take on a case unless they have a compelling reason. Sotomayer has over 360 cases that she has rendered a verdict, and only 7 have made their way to the Supremes. That is a percentage of less than 2%. That means 98% of her cases were NOT considered reviewable by the Supremes.

Of the 7 cases the Supremes reviewed, 1 is pending, 2 upheld and 4 reversed:

*Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008) -- decision pending

*Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007) -- reversed 6-3 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg)

*Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006) -- upheld

*Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005) -- reversed 8-0

*Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005) -- Upheld 5-4 (Dissenting: Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, Alito)

*Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000) -- reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer)

*Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997) -- reversed 7-2 (Dissenting: Stevens, Breyer)

*from CNN Politics

Ignorance is Bliss!!

Do they host interplanetary ferschnizzle too?