Given that this person has been a judge for decades and an appellate judge since she was appointed by George H. W. Bush, and they've only got two out of context inappropriate quotes and one supposedly questionable judgment, she's doing pretty good.
For those unfamiliar with appellate courts, this is where policy is set, judicial policy. The lower courts are concerned with questions of fact, who did what, when, how, how much damage, etc. Appellate courts, by my understanding, rarely address such matters. What they address are more meta-questions such as was the law in question applied correctly, did the trial go according to procedure and so on. These are questions of judicial policy.
And when the appellate courts run smack into some ass-hat piece of legislation written up by a bunch of lobbyists, appended by aides late at night when no one was looking and rammed through on a party line vote despite language more suited to grandstanding and scoring points than the fine-grained, clear, controlled explanations needed to run on the judicial operating system*, its the appellate court that has to wade through the mess and decide what it means. And even if the legislature actually did its job and passed good, clear, well written laws, we'd still need an appellate court to handle all those corner cases no one foresaw.
That's why the appellate court sets policy. That's what it's there for.
_______
* Hint - they don't make up all those strange terms for the fun of it any more than physicists get bent out of shape about the precise difference between force, energy and power.
For those unfamiliar with appellate courts, this is where policy is set, judicial policy. The lower courts are concerned with questions of fact, who did what, when, how, how much damage, etc. Appellate courts, by my understanding, rarely address such matters. What they address are more meta-questions such as was the law in question applied correctly, did the trial go according to procedure and so on. These are questions of judicial policy.
And when the appellate courts run smack into some ass-hat piece of legislation written up by a bunch of lobbyists, appended by aides late at night when no one was looking and rammed through on a party line vote despite language more suited to grandstanding and scoring points than the fine-grained, clear, controlled explanations needed to run on the judicial operating system*, its the appellate court that has to wade through the mess and decide what it means. And even if the legislature actually did its job and passed good, clear, well written laws, we'd still need an appellate court to handle all those corner cases no one foresaw.
That's why the appellate court sets policy. That's what it's there for.
_______
* Hint - they don't make up all those strange terms for the fun of it any more than physicists get bent out of shape about the precise difference between force, energy and power.