In ruling against Sonia Sotomayor's appellate decision in Ricci v. DeStefano--the case brought by white firefighters in New Haven who claimed they were wrongfully denied promotions after an examination yielded no firefighters of color eligible for advancement--the Supreme Court has provided Sotomayor's critics with fodder today.
An official statement from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:
The Supreme Court today recognized that Judge Sotomayor's panel wrongly deprived the New Haven firefighters of equal justice under the law. Not only did Judge Sotomayor misapply the law, but the perfunctory way in which she and her panel dismissed the firefighters' meritorious claims of unfair treatment is particularly troubling. It stands in marked contrast to the way the Supreme Court addressed this very serious matter, underscoring my concern that she may have allowed her personal or political agenda to cloud her judgment and affect her ruling.
And another from Judicial Confirmation Network counsel Wendy Long:
Frank Ricci finally got his day in court, despite the judging of Sonia Sotomayor, which all nine Justices of U.S. Supreme Court have now confirmed was in error.
Usually, poor performance in any profession is not rewarded with the highest job offer in the entire profession.
What Judge Sotomayor did in Ricci was the equivalent of a pilot error resulting in a bad plane crash. And now the pilot is being offered to fly Air Force One.
The firefighters in New Haven who protect the public safety and worked hard for their promotions did not deserve to become victims of racial quotas, and the Supreme Court has now confirmed that they did not deserve to have their claims buried and thrown out by Judge Sotomayor.
Oh no, not Mitch McConnell! And he was such an ardent supporter of Sotomayor before this decision!
Seriously, this is getting tired and predictable. Something happens involving a Democratic nominee, Republicans try to attack that nominee. Sometimes they'll feign "concern", as in McConnell's case; other times, they'll just lie outright about the facts of the situation, as in Wendy Long's case. It's all about political point-scoring with these people.
Hooray. Press releases.
You're offering a quote from Wendy Long? How...original.
Also, isn't it interesting that Sotomayor decided similarly to Souter and three others? Will someone please ask McConnell if we should now impeach those four current justices?
Or is it easier to just print press releases and be done with it?
Your little comments are pathetic and lack any substance. This emphasizes your ignorance and lack of position on this matter. You are among the ignorant masses that simply say "isn't it interesting that Sotomayor decided similarly to Souter and three others" when in fact Sotomayor didn't, and even if she did it would hardly be surprising given their ideological leanings. If you actually want to argue that Sotomayor did her job well, then do it. Don't rely on "look, SCOTUS split 5-4, so 4 justices thought Sotomayor was right." That is faulty logic that has nothing to do with an argument about whether Sotomayor did a poor job in her decision in that case. The lack of any real argument that Sotomayor performed well as a judge in that case is troubling and you can't escape it by trying to throw out idiotic things like Rush Limbaugh. So tell us why Sotomayor did her job well without pointing out that 4 justices dissented from the majority opinion, which says nothing about whether those 4 justices agree with Sotomayor. You're an idiot slag.
If I understand your position (aside from your personal attacks), it sounds like you're asserting that Sotomayor is incompetent and would like slag to prove that she's competent.
What makes you think she's incompetent? (I'm being serious.)
If you understand my position correctly, it is that saying 4 justices disagreed with the majority does not equal 4 justices agreed with Sotomayor. It isn't a comment on whether I think she is incompetent or competent. It's about the stunted approach taken to these issues.
Wendy Long appears not to be able to read. Decision by the Supremes was 5 to 4 with most of the usual suspects lining up on the side of the white firefighters. I am not sure that the ink was dry on the paper before the Repubs and neocons entered attack mode.
In point of fact, this is a very tough decision, and I am not even sure how I would rule if I were deciding it. A lot to be said on both sides, but only one side can prevail.
So regurgitating press releases counts as journalism now?
The press releases aren't even reasonable. Come on; do your job.
For those interested, here's a better article (with what I think is a winning argument against these silly attacks on Sotomayor with regard to percentages of agreement with the Supreme Court):
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/05/28/the-myth-of-sotomayors-60-percent-supreme-court-reversal-rate.html
And the comments show the stupidity of the public. There is more than one way to be wrong. Wendy Long is correct in that none of the justices thought that Sotomayor made the correct decision. Even the dissenting justices thought Sotomayor got it wrong and would have remanded the case to be reheard. So yes, all nine justices disagreed with Sotomayor's decision. They didn't agree with her logic, her reasoning, her standard, etc. They may ideologically agree with her outcome, but they certainly thought she didn't do her job right. Read the opinions rather than just seeing 5-4 decision and spouting off based on your ideological position.
Wow. Thank you for today's installment of wingnut talking points. Did Rushbo teach you these or did NRO do it for you?
Read the comments.
Etc.
Then, try to get over yourself.
Slag is right.
I read the opinion and I have a Ph.D. in this field. Justice Ginsburg was only suggesting a remand if the majority opinion were to be implemented, including its new standard (to which the respondent - New Haven - did not have previous access). A remand in that situation would be standard and she notes repeatedly that she disagrees not only with Alito's rationale, but his unwillingness to remand the case to the lower court with Alito's new criterion of Title VII application.
Anyone who reads her opinion and thinks she's chiding the lower court simply doesn't understand what they're reading.
Face it, jdwalker, you got used... again.
I'm not sure why you start off with Slag is right. It undercuts your (finally) good post, rather than what you've posted frequently. If you have a Ph.D. in the field, use it. I'm sure if you were being honest with yourself, you would agree that your previous posts were not on par with what you are now responding with. Agreeing with slag's idiotic comments only undercuts you making a real argument. However, I would still disagree with your point that Justice Ginsburg would have adopted the Second Circuit's ruling in the absence of the majority's opinion. First, Alito didn't write the majority opinion and talking about his concurring opinion and his new standard is irrelevant. Second, I never said she was chiding the lower court, just that the dissenting opinions did not adopt the lower court's opinion because (my reading) they did not think it was the correct way to handle the case (speaking of the procedural posture mostly).
I didn't get used, but I appreciate the effort to actually argue the facts and the opinion rather than some nonsense about the number in the majority and the dissent.
I would (seriously) be interested to know where you read disagreement in the dissent regarding the lower court's "procedural posture" (as I believe you put it).
Fantastic!
This goes to show how wrong Liberals have been for over 40 years! NOW, WE ALL MUST BE MEASURED BY OUR PERFORMANCE. Let the most qualified be the most successfull. And with any luck these people will have the most children. This is a victory for all humanity! After countless ruined lives, Americans can now demand to fire the inept and hire the best.
If you all want to get rid America of crime corruption extrorsion hatred and every face of Racism, simply demand the best and brightest occupy jobs that they are qualified for.
When the most inept and dishonest are given free handouts and unwarrented advancements. They continue to out populate the better citizens! The inept are producing children at 5 times the rate of the qualified people. WAKE UP! LIBERALISM HAS BEEN PRODUCING A MONSTER SOCIETY.
Well, Today it all stops! Thank you Darwin!
As a member of Congress, Sen. McConnell should realize that judges do not issue rulings according to what they think is FAIR; they issue rulings according to what is LEGAL. (The JCN is a joke of an organization - run by a former Bush campaign staffer - and I can't believe "The Atlantic" stooped low enough to publish their garbage, but even so, I would guess that Ms. Long should be aware of this fact as well.)
If Sen. McConnell want justices who rule by the letter of the law and not their own sense of fairness, then he shouldn't attack justices based on his sense of fairness. If Sen. McConnell thinks Judge Sotomayor erroneously applied the law, then he should make his case on those legal grounds (not that I think Sen. McConnell has troubled himself with the details of this case).
ncooty - your posts don't even make sense, and it is obvious you are ignorant in matters of American jurisprudence. Judges do issue rulings they think are fair for equitable causes of action. This is supposed to be in contrast to legal causes of action that are based on precedent, statutory law, and constitutional law. The contemporary debate it about the recent shift where judges do consider what is fair in deciding legal causes of action. To the extent you think judges don't do this, you are naive beyond belief. Sometimes it is a judge who first determines what is fair and then tries to find an argument that fits it within the legal framework as best he or she can; sometimes it is mangling precedent, statutory law, and/or constitutional law; and sometimes it is outright defiance of precedent, statutory law, and/or constitutional law. Take some time to actual learn about the American legal system before commenting on others that know more than you.
Now you're just being ironic.
You're right jdwalker, what do I know? I thought this case was brought largely under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and it's application to Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (particularly as amended in 1991 in response to the Wards Cove ruling). I was dumb enough to think that constituted Constitutional and federal legal questions (though I'll admit that the application of Executive Order 11246 to this case is legal in application, not context - as the EO is not a "law"). I thought the case involved a complicated and nuanced set of legal questions about the bounds of proactive employer measures when administered tests are found sufficient to meet a prima facie adverse impact case requirement and there is substantial evidence that equally valid instruments exist that would likely result in less adverse impact.
I only have a Ph.D. in this field. What the hell do I know?
You, on the other hand, clearly seem well aware of a new system of law (one ruled by super-scary "judicial activists"). Please tell me more, especially if you can make your new notion of law fit with calls for jurists who rule strictly on the "letter of the law" (and perhaps repudiate references to the "spirit of the law", as Justice Scalia does... shortly after referring to the Founders' intent... but that's a separate issue).
See comments above. But to respond to some of the comments in this post, I never said the new system of law is one ruled by super-scary judicial activists. But again, if you believe that judicial activism hasn't increased over the past couple decades, what planet are you living on? You can legitimately debate whether this is wanted or not, but to say it isn't happening is ridiculous. But arguing about whether judicial activism is a good thing or not or whether textualism is a better approach is beyond this topic and wasn't in any of my posts. I'm glad you got a Ph.D., but that doesn't mean anything if you can't actually make a good argument, which you still haven't even if you are trying harder. Thanks.
By the way, I have a J.D. It's like a Ph.D., only I actually practice law and deal with this stuff on a daily basis. I mention it not because I think it means my opinion has more weight in this debate, only that you need to quit repeating your credentials as if it means everything you say is better than what anyone else says on the topic. I know quite a few extremely intelligent people without a Ph.D. or J.D. that have better logic, reason, and arguments. So please, not another mention of you having a Ph.D. so we should all just agree with you.
Time to call it a night. No time to respond this evening, jdwalker. However, I did want to mention that I only listed my degree because most of your posts are belligerently ad hominem. I don't think the tone helps you communicate your point. Perhaps equanimity and civility might be in order.
And no, I JD is not like a Ph.D. - at all.
Errata: "a" vs. "I" in previous post. (Obviously I'm too tired.) Good night, all.
Yes, get a good night's sleep and come back tomorrow when you've had more time to try to think of something worth saying. Also, please don't be so sensitive, particularly if you are going to make ad hominem attacks against others and then cry about it later. Equanimity and civility will be granted in kind when it is offered.