Sunday, May 31, 2009

Sotomayor News Coverage

Click picture for full size --- Click envelope icon to share with friends
While Judge Sotomayor's judicial record is a cause for grave concern and serious examination, most of the media want to depict her as a simple rags-to-riches story (which is far from the truth), while deifying her for her race and gender. But Hope n' Change wants to know: how can the media be prejudiced in favor of a certain ethnic group, without being prejudiced against other groups?

But isn't such prejudice wrong? And shouldn't the Supreme Court be our last and strongest bastion to protect the rights of all Americans, turning a blind eye to race, creed, or color?


Mitch said...

Why do you use the term 'media' as if it is singular?

oliverandjazz said...

This woman is a racist, self proclaimed by her comments and is not suitable for the supreme court. If a caucasian male had made the same statement this conversation would have been over immediately, he dismissed, and ol al sharpton would have been all over it..oh and by the way, I feel that Martin Luther King had a dream to keep hope alive while Al Sharpton standing there spouting off while wearing rolexs and fancy suits is merely keeping 'racism' alive..

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

Mitch - I've corrected the "media" error, and thank you for catching it. As America's institutions and core tenets crumble and fall, Hope n' Change will at least strive to be a lighthouse of grammatical correctness amidst the darkness.

Oliverandjazz - Truth be told, Sotomayor's frequently quoted statement wouldn't be such a concern if it didn't seem to be so clearly aligned with her judicial opinions. She can believe whatever she likes, but she doesn't belong on the Supreme Court unless she can limit her rulings to the constraints so clearly described in the Constitution. The "colorblindness" sought by Dr. King should have the strength of law...not the enmity of any member of the Supreme Court.

Tao Jones said...

As long as you're cleaning up the record, you probably want to think about these calculations:

5/7 = .714 That's the number of Sotomayer's opinions that have been overturned or sent back to the lower court for further consideration divided by the total number of her cases reviewed by the Court. Of those, two opinions were subsequently upheld so the calculation 3/7 = .428 is a more accurate measure of how many of her opinions - which have been reviewed by the Supreme Court - have been overturned.

But the math is not the most troubling part, it's the language used by the fox "Judge Sotomayor's legal opinions have been overturned 60% of the time."

3/3000 = .001 This would represent the number of cases overturned by the Supreme Court divided by the number of cases in which she participated.


Stilton Jarlsberg said...

Tao Jones - Thanks for the input and the links! Certainly Judge Sotomayor has NOT been reversed 60% of the time in her overall opinions, and the stats you cite would seem to be correct. The 60% figure that's been quoted, including here, is referring to a small - perhaps too small - sub-sample of her opinions.

We're still very concerned about the Judge's rulings, her membership in "La Raza," and other issues...but think that it's imperative that she be judged solely on her merits, and not on any prejudices or misleading statistics.