On Jun 29, 2009, at 8:40 AM, [email protected] wrote:

>
> This is big news, apparently:
>
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/29/AR2009062901608_pf.html
>  
> >
> or
> <http://tinyurl.com/llr9go>
>
> BFD.

Exactly. It is in the nature of apellate court judges that their  
rulings tend to get overturned by the SCOTUS if the court takes the  
case.

If the Justices agree with the ruling, they just don't take the case,  
unless they really want to pile on, or there's inconsistent rulings  
from different appellate courts.

> It's no different that her being in the minority on the SCOTUS. The  
> 5-4 vote would have been no different with her on the court, either.

Yeah. Nothing is going to seriously change the makeup of the court  
unless one (or more) of  Thomas, Alito, Scalia or Roberts step down.  
All are young and in good health, so it's not likely.

So far the Republican side have managed their opposition to Sotomayor  
in a decidedly amateurish and ineffective fashion. (Senator Coburn, in  
particular, simply looked like a complete douche: "Well she was 10  
minutes late! I had other business!", as the woman hobbles around on  
crutches.)

This was largely because she never was the radical liberal they tried  
to make her out to be, and they admitted early on they were managing  
their opposition more as a fund raising tool than anything else.

-- 
Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs



--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"StrataList-OT" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/StrataList-OT?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to