Sotomayer’s Rulings Don’t Fare Well On Appeal
Hey, if she makes it onto the SCOTUS, at least her record of being reversed will improve.
Cases Reviewed by the Supreme Court
• Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008)—decision pending as of 5/26/2009
• 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, but reasoning was unanimously faulted
• Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005)—reversed 8-0
• Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005)—reversed 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)
• Affirmative Action (New Haven firefighter case): Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel that ruled in February 2008 to uphold a lower court decision supporting the City of New Haven’s decision to throw out the results of an exam to determine promotions within the city’s fire department. Only one Hispanic and no African-American firefighters qualified for promotion based on the exam; the City subsequently decided not to certify the results and issued no promotions. In June 2008, Sotomayor was part of a 7-6 majority to deny a rehearing of the case by the full court. The Supreme Court agreed to review the case and heard oral arguments in April 2009. Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008)
• Environment (Protection of fish at power plants): Sotomayor, writing for a three-judge panel, ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency may not engage in a cost-benefit analysis in implementing a rule that the “best technology available” must be used to limit the environmental impact of power plants on nearby aquatic life. The case involved power plants that draw water from lakes and rivers for cooling purposes, killing various fish and aquatic organisms in the process. Sotomayor ruled that the “best technology” regulation did not allow the EPA to weigh the cost of implementing the technology against the overall environmental benefit when issuing its rules. The Supreme Court reversed Sotomayor’s ruling in a 6-3 decision, saying that Sotomayor’s interpretation of the “best technology” rule was too narrow. Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg dissented, siding with Sotomayor’s position. Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007)
• Taxes (Deductability of trust fees): In 2006, Sotomayor upheld a lower tax court ruling that certain types of fees paid by a trust are only partly tax deductable. The Supreme Court upheld Sotomayor’s decision but unanimously rejected the reasoning she adopted, saying that her approach “flies in the face of the statutory language.” Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006)
• Finance (Rights of investors to sue firms in state court): In a 2005 ruling, Sotomayor overturned a lower court decision and allowed investors to bring certain types of fraud lawsuits against investment firms in state court rather than in federal court. The lower court had agreed with the defendant Merrill Lynch’s argument that the suits were invalid because the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 required that such suits be brought only in federal court. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned Sotomayor’s ruling in an 8-0 decision, saying that the federal interest in overseeing securities market cases prevails, and that doing otherwise could give rise to “wasteful, duplicative litigation.” Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005)
• Health Insurance (Reimbursement of insurance benefits): In 2005, Sotomayor ruled against a health insurance company that sued the estate of a deceased federal employee who received $157,000 in insurance benefits as the result of an injury. The wife of the federal employee had won $3.2 million in a separate lawsuit from those whom she claimed caused her husband’s injuries. The health insurance company sued for reimbursement of the benefits paid to the federal employee, saying that a provision in the federal insurance plan requires paid benefits to be reimbursed when the beneficiary is compensated for an injury by a third party. The Supreme Court upheld Sotomayor’s ruling in a 5-4 opinion. Justices Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, and Alito dissented. Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005)
• Civil Rights (Right to sue federal government and its agents): Sotomayor, writing for the court in 2000, supported the right of an individual to sue a private corporation working on behalf of the federal government for alleged violations of that individual’s constitutional rights. Reversing a lower court decision, Sotomayor found that an existing law, known as “Bivens,” which allows suits against individuals working for the federal government for constitutional rights violations, could be applied to the case of a former prisoner seeking to sue the private company operating the federal halfway house facility in which he resided. The Supreme Court reversed Sotomayor’s ruling in a 5-4 decision, saying that the Bivens law could not be expanded to cover private entities working on behalf of the federal government. Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer dissented, siding with Sotomayor’s original ruling. Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000)
• Intellectual Property (Distribution of freelance material): As a district court judge in 1997, Sotomayor heard a case brought by a group of freelance journalists who asserted that various news organizations, including the New York Times, violated copyright laws by reproducing the freelancers’ work on electronic databases and archives such as “Lexis/Nexis” without first obtaining their permission. Sotomayor ruled against the freelancers and said that publishers were within their rights as outlined by the 1976 Copyright Act. The appellate court reversed Sotomayor’s decision, siding with the freelancers, and the Supreme Court upheld the appellate decision (therefore rejecting Sotomayor’s original ruling). Justices Stevens and Breyer dissented, taking Sotomayor’s position. Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997)
You have six instances where the Supreme Court overturned a decision she made. In five of those cases, the liberals on the court dissented.
So what this tells me is that (a) she has been a judge for a long time and has written many opinions (Judge Sotomayor has more judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in the last 70 years.) and (b) the Supreme Court is heavily skewed to the right with the conservative majority reversing lots of opinions written by liberal judges.Posted by Mike Thomas on May 26, 2009 at 1443 hrs
Well Mike according to the left in Wisconsin being overturned means you are not qualified to serve on a higher court.
They made the rules, Owen is just following them.
Posted by Fred on May 26, 2009 at 1453 hrs
Fred,
I believe the specific objection to Koschnick’s record was that he was overturned in traffic ordinance cases and in child custody cases.
That being said, Sotomayor’s record should be reviewed, if she is being reversed on relatively simple legal grounds, I would object to her being appointed to SCOTUS.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 26, 2009 at 1546 hrs
This judge was the person who basically killed the baseball owners ability to bust the union in 1994. As a sports fan, the owners were extremely close to being able to get a true salary cap like the NFL has. It would have been a great thing for Milwaukee and other small markets. The strike was rolling along and replacement players would have forced the players union to make concessions and made needed changes a reality.
Then our friend Sonya stepped in. Perhaps she was able to be in the shoes of Latino millionaire baseball players in ruling against the owners.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 26, 2009 at 1715 hrs
Looks like water is being carried, and no doubt these same words are lighting up the rightie blogs all across the country. The cyber version of the mineograph.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 26, 2009 at 1751 hrs
Yeah… that righty CNN from where I got thi
Posted by Owen on May 26, 2009 at 1816 hrs
You have six instances where the Supreme Court overturned a decision she made. In five of those cases, the liberals on the court dissented.
Mike, I think you’re a bit fast with the characterizations. The record isn’t as clear-cut as you make it out to be.
You’re correct that the four liberals dissented on Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp.
However:
Three liberals dissented with one liberal voting with the majority on Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA.
Two liberals, one conservative, and the swing vote dissented on Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, with two liberals voting with the majority.
Two liberals dissented on Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, with two liberals voting with the majority.
All liberals voted either against her ruling or her reasoning in the two other cases.
the Supreme Court is heavily skewed to the right
Really? Explain.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 26, 2009 at 2042 hrs
Wow, how profound. Find a few examples of cases being overturned and suggest that it means she has cases turned over at an alarming clip.
Any data to back it up? What percentage of her total cases were overturned? How does that compare to other justices?
I guess such effort is a lot to ask from someone who has a post debunked by snopes.com on a monthly basis. Isn’t that kind of embarassing, or is the pure partisanship all that matters?
By the way, someone apparently did enough homework to show that, when a GOP-appointed judge sits with MSs. Sotomayer, she agreed with them 95% of the time: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/05/selling-sotomayor-to-the-centerright.html
Ah yes, then there’s the always pathetic “yeah but the other side” argument. Fred, if the left are the immoral degenerates you say they are, then doesn’t adopting their arguments make you an equal? If they play dirty and/or make stupid arguments, then why not take the high road?
Nevermind.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 26, 2009 at 2059 hrs
I’m sorry… is that other judge being nominated for the highest court in the land? Or should we spend our time scrutinizing the overturn rate of every judge on the bench?
And once again… the link is from CNN that was put up well before she was nominated.
But that’s OK, ATV. Hide behind your anonymity and snipe in the comments of blogs about partisanship if it makes you feel better.
Posted by Owen on May 26, 2009 at 2104 hrs
I could care less if she voted with a conservative 95% of the time. Those were probably so cut and dried she had no chance to “create results”.
It is the other 5% I’d be afraid of. Just a few of those cases can do some bad damage. Ask Bud Selig and his friends at Foley and Lardner how he feels about Sonia. I like to see an in depth MJS interview with him on this.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 26, 2009 at 2149 hrs
So in other words, she’d be fine by you if only she voted with the conservative 100% of the time? Or would 99% be okay too?
I will have so much fun this summer watching conservatives choke on this! Nobody cares about this issue, you can’t make anyone care, and all you’ll do by talking about it over and over is piss off Hispanic voters that the GOP desperately needs to find common ground with if it has any hope whatsoever of being a majority party in America going forward.
Sotomayor will clear the Senate with 70+ votes. Save the ammo for something that matters. But again, that requires political discipline, something the wayward conservatives have little of right now. Instead, they cry wolf at every given opportunity because the crying makes them feel better. What a bunch of self-indulgent, pitiful whiners conservatives have turned into.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on May 26, 2009 at 2254 hrs
Remember that she was put on the federal bench by that renowned liberal, President George H. W. Bush!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 27, 2009 at 0610 hrs
Total Entries: 20001
Total Comments: 134057
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 03:10 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 02:38 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 99
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 03:44 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).