Nor is the media helping: CNN’s cover image for the case, depicted to the right, sets up the right’s narrative: if Sotomayor couldn’t get Ricci right, how can we confirm her? Just ask Newt Gingrich:
The senate will have to review supreme court rejection of judge sotomayor’s reasoning in ricci case of discrimination against fire fighters
Thanks, Newt. Of course, this line of attack is hopelessly flawed. Kennedy’s opinion for the majority in Ricci essentially rewrites Title VII, turning it from an expressly remedial statute into one that prefers existing discrimination over good-faith attempts to build a more just society. The devil you know, I guess, but Sotomayor could hardly be expected to diverge from existing law in an attempt to predict whatever novel theory Kennedy will fabricate on certiorari.
Further, if the “gold standard” for Supreme Court justices is agreeing with settled law, then, by that logic, Roberts and Alito should never have been confirmed, given their known hostility to Roe. And, lest we forget, Sotomayor is a replacement for Souter, who voted, with 3 other justices, to affirm her opinion. No, Sotomayor isn’t a conservative, but was she supposed to be? McCain lost: deal.
In any event, here’s what I’ll be singing for the rest of the day:
Well they passed a law in ’64, to give those who ain’t got a little more. But it only goes so far…
Rewriting the law? Damn those liberal activist judges!
Posted by Oneiroi | June 29, 2009, 5:53 pmI am amazed that no one has made the comparison to Chief Justice Roberts Supreme Court nomination and the Hamdan v Rumsfeld case. Similarly, a hot debate occurs when a justice is up for nomination. In both situations, the Supreme Court overturned their decision when each served on a lower court.
The 2006 Hamdan case brought the constitutional questions of Separation of power, rights of military tribunals, and the Suspension Clause. At the time, Justice Roberts was interviewed for the position to replace Rehnquist on the US Supreme Court. While the interviewing occurred, he also presided on the US Court of Appeals hearing this case. The three court panel reversed the District Courts decision upholding the right of habeas corpus. Such ruling defied precedents as set forth in the Quirin case.
On June 29, 2006 the Supreme Court delivered its 5-3 decision (Roberts recused himself from the hearing) against the Bush administration’s military commissions thoroughly explained why the appeals court ruling erred.
In the recent case concerning reverse discrimination, Sotomayor was on the appellate court that dismissed the appeal. In contrast to Robert’s case, In February 2008, Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel that upheld a lower court decision to dismiss the results.
Case in point, how does Sonya Sotomayor’s situation differ from Chief Justice Roberts? If we are truly, applying the sentiments of the ruling held in, “Ricci et al v. Destefano then Judge Sotomayor should similarly face the same scrutiny as Chief Justice Roberts; to be nominated as a qualified justice.
Posted by Rebecca | June 30, 2009, 9:04 am