By Ed Whelan, National Review

Information about Sotomayor's dismal court record

I haven’t had time to research and review Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s body of opinions, so I’ll limit myself to a couple additional comments (beyond his Part 1 post):

1.  On those occasions on which the Supreme Court has reviewed Sotomayor’s rulings, she hasn’t fared well, drawing some pointed criticism and garnering at most 11 out of 44 possible votes for her reasoning across five cases. 

In Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp. (2000), Sotomayor ruled that the Court’s 1971 ruling in Bivens, which implied a private action for damages against federal officers alleged to have violated a citizen’s constititutional rights, should be extended to create an implied damages action against a private corporation operating a halfway house under contract with the Bureau of Prisons.  On review (Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko (2001)), the Court reversed Sotomayor by a 5-4 vote.  Chief Justice Rehnquist’s majority opinion labeled the plaintiff’s claim “fundamentally different from anything recognized in Bivens or subsequent cases.” 

Read More:

Related posts:

1. Sotomayor believes 2nd Amendment not for Individuals
2. Obama picks Hispanic Liberal Sotomayor for Supreme Court
3. Ruling in Discrimination Case Draws Obama
4. Napolitano Floats to Supreme Court List
5. The Tired War on Rush Limbaugh: He is once again in the line of fire.

Tags: Barack Obama, Judicial Record, Sotomayor, Supreme Court

This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 26th, 2009 at 12:26 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.