Saturday, June 6, 2009

Sotomayor: Ideology, Not Law, Drove Decision in Ricci v. DeStefano

Today's report at the New York Times,"New Scrutiny of Judge’s Most Controversial Case," is a frankly devastating portrait of Sonia Sotomayor's deeply flawed jurisprudence (and in light of this story, it's almost inaccurate to utter "Sotomayor" and "jurisprudence" in the same sentence):

Near the end of a long and heated appeals court argument over whether New Haven was entitled to throw out a promotional exam because black firefighters had performed poorly on it, a lawyer for white firefighters challenging that decision made a point that bothered Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

“Firefighters die every week in this country,” the lawyer, Karen Lee Torre said. Using the test, she said, could save lives.

“Counsel,” Judge Sotomayor responded, “we’re not suggesting that unqualified people be hired. The city’s not suggesting that. All right?”

The exchange was unusually charged. Almost everything about the case of Ricci v. DeStefano — from the number and length of the briefs to the size of the appellate record to the exceptionally long oral argument — suggested that it would produce an important appeals court decision about how the government may use race in decisions concerning hiring and promotion.

But in the end the decision from Judge Sotomayor and two other judges was an unsigned summary order that contained a single paragraph of reasoning that simply affirmed a lower court’s decision dismissing the race discrimination claim brought by Frank Ricci and 17 other white firefighters, one of them Hispanic, who had done well on the test.

The Ricci case, bristling with important issues, has emerged as the most controversial and puzzling of the thousands of rulings in which Judge Sotomayor participated, and it is likely to attract more questions at her Supreme Court confirmations hearings than any other.
Read the full article here. Memeorandum links to addtional opinions, here. Robert Stacy McCain offers a long discursion on the hypocrisy of leftist identity politics, here.

I'm simply struck by the sheer underqualification of Sonia Sotomayor. This woman is an ideological quota queen par excellence. That fact explains why she's so popular,
and defended so vociferously, by the racial victimologists on the radical left. Indeed, radicals have now turned support for Sotomayor's nomination into a loyalty test of hardline leftist nihilism. See Dave Neiwert, "We Stand With Sonia Sotomayor," and "Stand with Judge Sotomayor Against the Right-Wing Attacks."

Uncomprehensible, really.


The blogprof said...

If not Sotomayor, then who? Obama will only nominate those that make policy on the bench and call it 'interpretation.' In essence, every single one of his nominees at every level are unqualified because none of them understand justice. She must be opposed, and so must all his nominees. Of course, that does not jive with political reality at this moment.

AmPowerBlog said...

Hi Blog Prof: Presidents are entitled to their picks, but Soto's a doozy!

dave in boca said...

I know this sounds illogical, but Sotomayor and her Catholic view on [or at least understanding of] the infanticide of millions of unborn makes her more qualified than any other monstrosity that Obama might nominate.

The lesser of many evils.

I can remember when Ginsberg was voted in 97-0 after Fat Teddy rubbed Bork's face in the mud, so I don't believe Repubicans have a notochord among their dozens of Senators.

If Sotomayor is semi-neutral on Roe v. Wade, then perhaps she'll be better than the other potential candidates.

However, she will be just another mediocre SCOTUS member, with Roberts & Alito providing backbone. Stevens may croak physically as he has long ago mentally--- thanks Gerry Ford for another RINO masterpiece! ---and then Obama can appoint another identity type, maybe a gay, who knows?