Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
tips@gizmodo.com
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | Email | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
Email | AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Jesus Diaz
Email | AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
Email | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
Email | Twitter
Sean Fallon
Email | Twitter
Jack Loftus
Email | Twitter
John Herrman
Email | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Email
Chris Mascari
Email
Danny Allen
Email | Twitter
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Email
Chris Jacob
Email
Comment Intern:
Nick Ellenoff | Email
Comment Account Questions:
Comments@gizmodo.com
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/03/09
11/02/09
11/02/09
11/02/09
11/02/09
11/02/09
05/27/09
.......
Remind me again why Supreme Court Justices get lifetime appointments? In 2009, this seems like it should be a bit of an oddity to hear.
05/27/09
So they are as insulated as much as possible from:
(a) The temptation to decide the law based on public sentiment and the need to be elected. (A balance against the more "democratic" legislative and executive branches.)
(b) The temptation to decide the law based on potential personal future gain or earnings. (The same reason they have historically had to be careful about their stock portfolios.)
(c) The idea that just as the law is based on precedent, the more experience a Justice has on the bench, the better they will be to moderate the slow movement of case law.
And it doesn't just apply to Supreme Court Justices, it's true for all Federal judges.
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
heeeeeeeeeeeeeeey kids.... anyone seen a grown man naked before? want some scocialism?
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
a) That's not a fact, because it's not true.
b) Of the 380 opinions, she wrote, the SCOTUS only actually accepted cert on five of them (letting the rest stand), and of those, overturned only three.
c) She became an appellate judge in 1998, meaning her tenure coincided with one of the most conservative SCOTUS periods of the last 75 years, so it wouldn't be all that shocking in any case that a judge that is more similar in her legal approach to the current 4-Justice minority would be overturned.
d) She comes from the 2nd Circuit, which aside from the 9th Circuit, has generally been overturned more than the other Circuits due to (c).
Seriously, she's not a perfect candidate, but support your arguments with facts if you want to actually establish that it is "important."
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
That's what I was thinking. That ruling right there pretty much spells out that she is either A) lazy as all fuck, and didn't feel like putting any effort into the case, or B) is totally fine perpetuating the racial double standard that does nothing for equality, as this would have been an open and shut case if a bunch of black fire fighters were denied a promotion because none of the white fire fighters passed their exams.
I don't care if a judge has different ideologies then I do, but I sure as hell expect them to know a thing or two about the laws they supposedly represent, and are willing to do their homework before deciding on hot button cases, especially if that judge is in line for a seat on the nation's highest court.
05/27/09
Are you white? [ ] Yes / [X] No
I'm sorry. The correct answer was "yes."
05/27/09
...Well if I'd known you were all so hungry, I would have made two.
05/27/09