What would be your test for the suitability of a Judge for higher bench?

[ThomWV]

If you were to pick one one standard (hopefully a measurable one) by which to judge a Judge what would it be? My choice would be how many of their decisions had been overturned by higher court. What's yours?

[KharmaTrain]

1. Peer Review...

So much of the work on the SCOTUS is in forming consensus and working with others. Ideology goes only so far in a split court and I admire those that can be flexible within the court setting to give clear and strong opinions. I always appreciate hearing from other judges, lawyers and others who worked with her...know her style and can speak to her ability to be fair.

What almost knocked me out of my chair yesterday was a ringing endorsement for her by Larry Klayman. Here's a loser that sued his own mother, yet he had high praise for how Judge Sotomeyer handled cases.

The problem with going by win/losses in decisions is the merits of each case. A strong chance a Justice Sotomeyer won't face these type of cases again and if she does may opt out due to past rulings.

Cheers...

[ThomWV]

2. What is "Peer Review" in a judicial sense?

I'm not sure I get what you mean; where is there peer review in the judicial system other than than decisions may be challenged and upheld, or not. I'm not sure what you mean by "win/loss" in decisions either - generally one side wins and the other side loses but the judge is (or should be) in the middle is how I see it

What I meant by decisions being upheld was just that - when a Judges decisions have been challenged in higher Court did they withstand the challenge - haveing been based on sound law and procedure imposed by the Judge - or did they not? It seems to me to be a test of competence and jurisprudence, not intellect, philosophy, or political motivation (although I personally find these things important). Besides, its someting you can count.

[KharmaTrain]

3. ABA, Lawyers Watchdog Goups...

There are plenty of sources for these reviews. For example, it was such peer review on Clarence Thomas that brought not his temperment and poor work habits to the fore (as well as Anita Hill)...we learned this is how he operates on the court.

You'll see these peers at the confirmation hearings...folks like Lawrence Tribe and Jon Turley and Ted Olson...from all sorts of political stripes, but people who have either been involved with cases in front of her court or have looked at her work...from a legal, not a political level. I hope that makes it clearer.

I agree that appeals should be taken into consideration...put it all on the table...but I'm more for building a bigger picture of who Judge Sotomeyer is. A good example on the other side is Harriet Meyers...I still shudder to think how close she came to getting onto the court and how little anyone knew about her.

Cheers...

[ThomWV]

4. Thank you ever so much

I had sort of skipped over all of those reviewers. I guess in truth the legal journals and Reviews provide much the same service to the profession.

You know, in my mind Meyers wasn't really even in the running. I know how serious it was when idiot-son put her name up but I just never saw it as a real possibility that she might make it through the nomination process; of course I was always suprised by every new outrage from that Administration so I should have been very frightened.

By the way, I am pleased enough with the choice of Judge Sotomeyer.

[KharmaTrain]

6. It's Scary To Think We Got Saved By The Wingnuts...

Rove and this puppetmasters surely felt they could steamroll Meyers onto the court. They had both Houses and were ready to use the "Nuclear Option" to prevent a cloture vote or fillibuster. It was the howling of the wingers like Bettamillion Bennett and even Rushbo that she wasn't "conservative" enough or that there was little record on her background...that was when her nomination hit the skids. Had Rove stroked his internal critics enough to shut them up, she would be sitting on the court right now.

One thing for certain...I felt a lot better seeing President Obama making that selection than having a president mccain do it.

I'm also pleased with the selection and now we'll have a summer long vetting process.

:toast:

[zorahopkins]

5. Sonia Sotomayor is an EXCELLENT Choice For the Supreme Court

If someone were to ask me, "Do you think Sonia Sotomayor is a good pick for the Supreme Court?", I would say, "YES YES YES".

She has all the characteristics of a GREAT Supreme Court Justice. She has roots among the common people. She is well-educated. She is devoted to the cause of Justice FOR ALL. She is empathetic and sympathetic.

She is the COMPLETE opposite of the two "justices" who were appointed by the illegal and totally corrupt Bush/Cheney regime of thugs and cronies -- Scalia and Roberts. They are -- BOTH OF THEM! -- little more than right-wing hacks who are likely in the employ of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy to Deny Poor People and Minorities Their Civil Rights!

Once again, our Beloved President Barack Obama has shown himself to be a man who really cares for the down-trodden and the oppresseed (such a welcome change after eight long dreary years of the tyrannical nightmare known as the Bush/Cheney misadminstration). President Obama is, indeed, bringing us closer to the day when there will be peace, prosperity, gender equality, justice, and love.

[dem629]

9. Among the common people?

If a judge takes people's stories (outside the realm of the suit in front of them) they are in violation of their oath.

28 U.S.C. § 453

"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00000453----000-.html

You don't want a judge who by definition violates their oath do you?

[zorahopkins]

10. You're Joking, Right?

My post simply note that Judge Sotomayor has her roots among the common people.

How would that violate her oath?

Are you suggesting that because she has her roots among the common people, that she would be incapable of dispensing justice in a fair and equal manner?

Are you suggesting that it is only people who were born into riches and privilege who can fairly dispense justice????

[dem629]

13. No.

You said: "She is empathetic and sympathetic."

Ruling on empathy or sympathy violates the oath. Presumably, the oath means something. Does it not?

I am not suggesting she would be incapable of dispensing justice in a fair manner. You are.

[norepubsin08]

7. One that hates the cops and prosecutors

and figures all of law enforcement lies...would be excellent for a start!

[Kaleva]

8. As mentione earlier, peer review would be my litmus test

[VelmaD]

11. I would use how often they've been overturned...

by higher courts...but probably not in the way most people would think. Given the current makeup of the Supreme Court and some of the absolutely ridiculous rulings that have come out over the past 20 years or so...I want someone who has been overturned a lot, since that would mean they disagreed with Rehnquist/Scalia/Thomas on pretty much everything important.

[Orsino]

12. Who picked him/her.

No one that Bush nominated was ever going to be worth a damn.