Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Race & Ethnicity

preventivePhD

(53 posts)

2. just curious

Reply to elleng (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 10:08 PM

Nov 2012

How many cases in a row or what percentage of cases from a larger sample would they have to turn down in order to arouse your suspicion?

Why do you disagree? Why do you think it demeans their role?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

14 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Appeals Votes Down 30 race discrimination cases in a row [View all] preventivePhD Nov 2012 OP

You appear to assume they vote according to what you assume their appointer would want, elleng Nov 2012 #1

just curious preventivePhD Nov 2012 #2

I'm an attorney, elleng Nov 2012 #3

So there really no limit where you would become suspicious preventivePhD Nov 2012 #4

How do you know what law schools teach? elleng Nov 2012 #5

Since you didn't answer my question I'm not answering yours preventivePhD Nov 2012 #6

Your premise was flawed on 2 counts: elleng Nov 2012 #7

I guess you forgot logic was on the LSAT preventivePhD Nov 2012 #8

It's been quite a while since I took the LSAT. elleng Nov 2012 #9

You must be a genuis to take not have studied for LSAT logic exam preventivePhD Nov 2012 #10

As I said, been a LONG time, don't recall special LSAT logic exam, elleng Nov 2012 #11

I rarely agree with Republicans but I agree with Senator Grassley Analysis of Appeal court juges preventivePhD Dec 2012 #12

#1 is a procedural mess of a case, elleng Dec 2012 #13

The judges claim that ever single case they get is a procedural mess due to plaintiff's so preventivePhD Dec 2012 #14