- The Washington Times - Friday, May 29, 2009


I find it fascinating that President Obama selected Judge Sonia Sotomayor as his nominee to the Supreme Court. For me, one of the most telling arguments against Judge Sotomayor is the widely cited statistic that her decisions have been reversed on appeal 60 percent of the time. To put this another way, she has been right just 40 percent of the time. Her judicial record doesn’t even rise to the level of an F. What an incredible waste of time, effort and resources to have both plaintiff and defendant appear before a judge who is right 40 percent of the time.

Why can’t we pick an appellate judge who has been right more than 10 percent of the time? Is there one? Even a judge who has earned a B - one who was right 80 percent of the time - would be better.

Sure, Judge Sotomayor has made a number of statements showing that she has no respect for the Constitution or her profession. As disconcerting as those statements are, more important is that she has been right just 40 percent of the time. That alone disqualifies her from being a Supreme Court justice. Furthermore, it raises an important question: How has she been hiding out on an appellate court all this time? Perhaps a better question is: Why is she still a judge?

When it comes to Supreme Court nominees, I don’t care about sex, race, religion or empathy. However, I would think that whoever is nominated would at least be a good judge.


Dumfries, Va.

Sign up for Daily Opinion Newsletter

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide