Sotomayor after the Ricci ruling
Will the Supreme Court’s overturning of Sotomayor in a race-charged firefighter case harm her hopes of joining the court?
The Supreme Court overturned Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's Ricci v. DeStefano decisision.
(Corbis/Brooks Kraft)
The Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling in a New Haven firefighter reverse-discrimination case is a big deal in itself, said the Chicago Tribune in an editorial, but its “legal import” has “taken a back seat” to commentary on what the case, Ricci v. DeStefano, reveals about Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, whose appeals court ruling it overturned. It doesn’t reveal much. If Sotomayor was wrong, “she was in good company”—two lower courts and four justices.
Sotomayor was wrong, said The Wall Street Journal in an editorial, both about the merits of the case and in her three-judge panel’s curt dismissal of the white firefighters’ discrimination claims—all nine justices agreed about her “mishandling” of the case. After her infamous “wise Latina” comment, Sotomayor’s “dismissive treatment” of the white plaintiffs “reinforces concerns that she is prone to race-conscious jurisprudence.”
Not really, said Linda Greenhouse in The New York Times. Sotomayor and her colleagues relied on “settled precedent” on job discrimination; the five-justice majority in Ricci created a new precedent with their ruling Monday. In other words, Sotomayor “played by the old rules, and the court changed them.” That’s not judicial activism on her part.
The “bottom line,” said Jonathan Adler in The Volokh Conspiracy, is that Ricci “reinforces the argument that Sotomayor is a mainstream liberal nominee”—in line with the four liberal Supreme Court justices, including David Souter, who she’s tapped to replace. Even if her handling of the case “reflects poorly on her judgment,” it is “(almost) inconceivable” that she won’t be confirmed.
Show: Oldest | Newest
9 Comments
Posted by Johnny Reb, Tuesday, June 30, 2009, 9:32 am Oh, let us all hope this has an impact and keeps this racist shrew off the bench.
Posted by Aaron, Tuesday, June 30, 2009, 12:32 pm This case is typical of how sick and twisted the whole Affirmative Action movement is. The most qualified are supposed to rise to the top, REGARDLESS... not in spite... of race. Sotomayor is a disgrace to the bench. She is a member of La Raza, which if this was a white person belonging to a whiterace group, it would be all over.
Posted by nkdpagan, Tuesday, June 30, 2009, 4:44 pm Aaron, La Raza is not an organization based on race, but on nationality, which a totally different concept. Plenty of americans belong to nationalistic organizations and nationalistic pride is encouraged, espically when elections come around.
Posted by CutThrouighTheMuck, Tuesday, June 30, 2009, 4:50 pm What this proves is that Judge Sotomayor is not an activist judge. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals vote was unanimous because of the preponderance of precedence. Two almost identical cases one in 1984 openjurist.org/733/f2d/220/busheyvnewyorkstatecivilservicecommission and the other in 1999 Hayden v. County of Nassau were upheld. For judge Sotomayor and her fellow judges to rule on the side of the fire fighters would have be an example of judicial activism, and is a privilege reserved for the United States Supreme Court.
Posted by DW, Tuesday, June 30, 2009, 4:54 pm It is sad that it is okay to be racist as long as the person is nonCaucasian. Judge Sotomayor may be a good person but it is indicative of what everyone is being taught in America it is okay to discriminate against Caucasians because of previous injustices toward other races. It should never be okay to discriminate against anyone for the color of their skin.
Posted by Tommy Aquinas, Tuesday, June 30, 2009, 5:04 pm Racist shrew? This lady has a respect for precedent, with a remarkable story that smacks of the American dream. And how can you be so bitter against a group whose aim is to reduce discrimination of a demographic that, in part because of the underpinnings of comments like yours, historically hasn't yet been truly seen on equal footing as other groups? Maybe God made ideologies like yours for a good cause, if for no other reason than to strengthen their resolve. Like the Mexican handcuffs, the harder you pull yourself away, the tighter its weave.
Posted by Aaron, Wednesday, July 1, 2009, 12:16 pm Hey nkdpagan La Raza means The Race. Nationality has zero to do with it. Don't try to play your leftist mind games here. 2 2 4. It's really that simple.
Posted by CutThroughTheMuck, Sunday, July 5, 2009, 11:59 pm Aaron,Sorry I didn't take your word for it, but I went to Dictionary.com and the defined La Raza as the people. 1.used with a plural verb Mexican Americans collectively. 2.used with a singular verb MexicanAmerican culture. Sounds like it might have more to do with the culture than race . . . thanks for playing though.
Post a Comment