>>>As to competence, how about Sotomayor's 60% reversal rate? I would say that puts her in the incompetent category with a slam dunk. Forget her blatant sexism and racism, she simply is not good enough to be one of the Supremes.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/27/60-reversal-of-sotomayor-rulings-gives-fodder-to-f/>>
>>That's a misleading statistic. Five (yes, just 5) of her rulings have gone to the Supreme Court and they overturned 3 of them. What about the hundreds that either didn't go to the court or were refused cert?
>>
>>Tamar
>
>Hundreds of what? If you mean court decisions, then Supreme Court simply has no means to take low court cases in such quantities.
Of course. What I meant was that saying that Sotomayor has a 60% reversal rate based on the results of 5 out of her hundreds of rulings going to the Supreme Court was misleading. If 50 of her rulings had gone to the court and 30 been reversed, there might be something to be concerned about.
I don't know in what percent of her rulings, someone's attempted to get the Court to grant cert, but I do know that only 5 making it there is a low number. And fwiw, the Supreme Court is far more likely to grant cert to cases they think they'll reverse (which makes sense). I've seen a statistic of 75% reversal for cases that get to the court, which would actually mean that Sotomayor's reversal rates is lower than average.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/05/28/the-myth-of-sotomayors-60-percent-supreme-court-reversal-rate.htmlTamar
