« Back to story "Breaking: Supreme Court Overrules Sotomayor On Ricci Decision ...More- Sotomayor Overturned 66% of Time"

Story Comments

Posted by: gwhiddon 5 months, 4 weeks ago

This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.

All Comments Share Story Report

45%
gwhiddon5 months, 4 weeks ago

This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

I think he's saying being reversed because she didn't know the law puts her in the "middle".

(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 1) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
Reply
11 Replies

loading ...
- 100%
  PapaWolf5 months, 4 weeks ago
  
  This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
  
  It was a 5-4 ruling. You can't get any more "middle" than that - unless you want to cut one of the 5's down the middle & split his vote.
  
  BTW, You guys really don't understand this stuff, do you?
  
  2 out of 6? That's only 6 THAT THE SCOTUS DECIDED TO CONSIDER. The REST of the hundreds / thousands (?) of which she was a part were turned down by the SCOTUS because. most likely, it didn't believe further consideration of her rulings was necessary.
  
  IOW, it AGREED with her rulings.
  
  So the 4 overturned are just 4 out of hundreds, if not thousands, not just the 6 submitted to further review.
  
  (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 5) (recursion depth : 2) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
  Reply
  10 Replies
  
  loading ...
  - PetesakeComment removed: Hard Banned3 Replies
    - 56%
      Goppy5 months, 4 weeks ago
      
      This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
      
      Wow ... you really are a b itch ... you f ucked up moron.
      
      ..
      
      LOL ... now I see why you Righties love to throw insults around ... you just turn off the brain ... and let it sling ... you know ... like a moron.
      
      ..
      
      Course, this state of mental affairs may become permanent in YOUR case Petesake ... given that you have NEVER provided ANY insight in ANYTHING you say.
      
      So ... I guess obscenities is ... 'about it' ... from you!
      
      LOL...
      .
      
      (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 7) (recursion depth : 4) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
      Reply
      1 Reply
      
      loading ...
      - sonofreasonComment removed: Hard Banned
    - Neutral
      djn3nunez35 months, 3 weeks ago
      
      This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
      
      The b itch f ucked up and the Supreme Court said she did.
      
      Nope, she was following the precedent set previously
      
      Hmmm, any other Supreme Court Justices have their previous rulings overturned by the High Court?
      
      Hint: Why yes they have.
      
      Is this a philabuster moment for the Republicans? Nah, only for the rabid 20%ers or the BOSS Limbaugh legion of obstructionist who are doing everything in their power to make it appear that President Obama has failed (even though he's only been in office for less than 6 month)
      
      (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 7) (recursion depth : 4) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
      Reply
      0 Replies
      
      loading ...
  - 50%
    k9kssr5 months, 4 weeks ago
    
    This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
    
    She may have ruled on hundreds, if not thousands, of cases, but surely you are not implying that everything she ruled on was appealed to SCOTUS, are you? The SC usually doesn't hear EVERY case heard by the lower courts. She has a 66% reversal rate on those heard by the SC.
    
    Now answer your own question, you don't really understand this stuff do you?
    
    (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 6) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
    Reply
    5 Replies
    
    loading ...
    - 60%
      Goppy5 months, 4 weeks ago
      
      This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
      
      If I were to compare what PapaWolf wrote ... with what YOU wrote, k9kssr ... I'd say PapaWolf was FAR more cognizant of the issues surrounding this ruling.
      
      You're only here ... after all ... as a partisan hack ... to support Propeller's ULTIMATE partisan hack ... our very own pc25.
      .
      
      (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 7) (recursion depth : 4) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
      Reply
      0 Replies
      
      loading ...
    - PetesakeComment removed: Hard Banned3 Replies
      - 100%
        jakesguile5 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        Oh you mean when he talks in "bumpkin" like the little innane redneck trolls?
        
        Maybe you just don't understand the art of subtilty or of satire. It's a language above someone of your intellectual strata
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 8) (recursion depth : 5) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        0 Replies
        
        loading ...
      - Neutral
        djn3nunez35 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        Oh for Pete's sake when you use terms like "The b itch f ucked up" you hardly have room to complain about goppy's style.
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 8) (recursion depth : 5) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        loading ...
        
        sonofreasonComment removed: Hard Banned