Skip to main content

View Diary: Next Battle: Bush's Judicial Nominees (102 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  A high reversal rate... (none)
    is not necessarily a bad thing--it depends on how it got there.  If the judge is reversed for ignoring blatantly "on point" and binding precedent, that's obviously a bad thing.  However, even good judges get reversed when there's legal uncertainty on a principle.  That's why we have circuit courts and the Supreme Court--to provide uniformity and certainty.
    •  But... (none)
      ...isn't it unlikely that one judge is ending up with a much higher number of cases involving legal uncertainty? It seems to me like that would even out over time, and so an extraordinarily high reversal rate would be more likely to reflect on the judge.

      "The past is never dead. It's not even past." -- William Faulkner

      by GreenCA on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 10:44:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes... (none)
        But what we need to do is not say "he's been reversed a lot!"  Troubling and concerning, to be sure, but not disqualifying in and of itself.  We should pick the two or three most egregious reversed decisions and say "this was reversed because of X."  Better politics.

        (A great example of this is the Priscilla Owen abortion case in TX, where she was in dissent, and got smacked down in a majority opinion written by now-AG Gonzales for being too extreme.  THAT's an example to use, rather than just saying "extreme!")

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site