Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw
you didn't listen, qualified doesn't matter either way to the dems..
|
Doesn't sound like it matters to you either...
Quote:
|
my comment is not out of context and her's is on tape...nice try...
|
So did you listen to the tape?
Here's her full comment in response to a student asking about the differences between circuit and district court experiences.
Quote:
|
The saw is that if you're going into academia, you're going to teach, or as Judge Lucero just said, public interest law, all of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with court of appeals experience, because it is -- court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know -- and I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don't make law, I know. OK, I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it, I'm -- you know. OK. Having said that, the court of appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating -- its interpretation, its application. And Judge Lucero is right. I often explain to people, when you're on the district court, you're looking to do justice in the individual case. So you are looking much more to the facts of the case than you are to the application of the law because the application of the law is non-precedential, so the facts control. On the court of appeals, you are looking to how the law is developing, so that it will then be applied to a broad class of cases. And so you're always thinking about the ramifications of this ruling on the next step in the development of the law. You can make a choice and say, "I don't care about the next step," and sometimes we do. Or sometimes we say, "We'll worry about that when we get to it" -- look at what the Supreme Court just did. But the point is that that's the differences -- the practical differences in the two experiences are the district court is controlled chaos and not so controlled most of the time.
|
If you take the time to read her full comment, think critically about what she was saying and then reflect on the meaning it should be clear to just about anyone that she was simply stating the obvious.
Quote:
|
he record with supreme court appeals is outstanding! only overturned 60% of the time, doesn't matter, she'll be confirmed and we'll have another activist on the bench preaching the merits crap....
|
It looks like she authored 380 majority opinions in 11 years, 5 of which made it to the Supreme Court and 3 of which were overturned. That's your 60%? 3 of 5?
Considering that the Supreme Court only chooses to hear selective cases, to even use the 3 without understanding the circumstance and how the majority ruling differed from her's make the number pretty meaningless...
Unless of course you're trying to pedal misinformation.
Don't you have anything of substance today? So far you've provided no evidence to support the assertion this is an activist pick.
-spence