How about Sotomayor

[Krimson X]

Originally Posted by MrLabGuy

LOL...I figured that would be your response. Let's see...

Let's say I'm an employee looking for a promotion to a senior position which requires me to review others. The CEO or our company tells me that I'm not being considered because three of the five times I was reviewed they found that my decisions were out of line and were overturned. My argument...Which you are using is that I had 300+ other decisions that were not scrutinized so the sum total of my errors were minimal. On top of that everyone in my department only has a 25% success rate so you should consider me for the job because I'm an exemplary candidate. That argument is laughable.

RIGHT!

WRONG. I am glad that I amuse you, though. The majority of the cases that come to the S.Ct. are novel issues that require the Court's oversight...grey areas of the law (as evidenced by 6-3 and 5-4 decisions...the justices themselves rarely agree). You have to understand, once a case finally gets to the S.Ct., that same case has been litigated in 2 to 3 other courts before the S.Ct. decides whether it will take up the issue. Sometimes the holdings during the course of litigation are reversed, but the majority are affirmed. The Supreme Court is not a court of original jurisdiction (except in limited circumstances i.e cases between the states, cases involving diplomats and ambassadors), therefore the only way The S.Ct. hears a case is if someone applies for a supervisory writ or other legal vehicle.

Believe me, if there were reasons for her other decisions to be scrutinized and brought before the S.Ct., they would have. Otherwise, the attorney who failed to appeal to the Court is asking for a malpractice suit.

I'd figure you'd come harder than throwing out a hypothet to support your argument. It's like answering a question with a question. Give me some facts. Enough of the partisan talking points.