Study: In 50 Recent Race-Related Decisions, Sotomayor Backed Discrimination Claims 3 Times

SCOTUSblog:

In those 50 cases, the panel accepted the claim of race discrimination only three times. In all three cases, the panel was unanimous; in all three, it included a Republican appointee. In roughly 45, the claim was rejected. (Two were procedural dispositions.)

On the other hand, she twice was on panels reversing district court decisions agreeing with race-related claims - i.e., reversing a finding of impermissible race-based decisions. Both were criminal cases involving jury selection.

Read the whole story: SCOTUSblog

Comments

[Bud]

I would vote against Sotomayor because of her position on the fireman promotion case. I think a lot of liberals/leftists have been in denial for a long time about the effects of reverse racism. They keep pounding and pounding issues in a way that is out of touch, anachronistic. Furthermore it really makes one more aware of reality when censored by people (progressi­ves/leftis­ts/liberal forums) whom I have always had such a deep affiliation with.

The unconscious patronization of minorities does not help anyone. For example, a study by Kent Harbor (1998) asked white university women to evaluate a poorly written essay. When they believed the writer was black, the women gave significantly higher scores and never strongly criticized essays. On the other hand, the women expressed harsh criticism when they thought the essays were written by a white person. Liberal authors will typically go on to cry about how this “inflated praise and insufficient criticism” could hinder minority achievement, but what about the effect on whites?

That being said my vote against Sotomayor would be on a principle I feel strongly about, having little to do with evaluation of her character or experience. It appears she will be confirmed and if so I expect and look forward to her being a strong force for reinforcing the best of American tradition and values.

[rabiddog6708]

reverse rac.ism...­..oh, my you poor, oppressed white male. When will the world ever stop keeping you down?

[Joseph A. Palermo - Huffpost Blogger]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/judge-sonia-sotomayors-no_b_209384.html

[Diana]

Wow, I'm sooo relieved! She's not a nasty liberal after all.

With obama's record thus far, who needs republicans.

[cjk002]

Yeah, because Republicans would have ended the global gag rule, or signed the Fair Pay act, or started the withdrawal from Iraq, or started the closing of Guantanamo, or ended torture, or passed a stimulus, or would be working to push health care and environmental legislation through. If you thought Obama was only going to do the things you want him to do versus what is actually good for the country, then you should have voted for someone else.

[Diana]

But Obama didn't withdraw from Iraq--indeed, he expanded the war in Afghanistan; he didn't close Guantanamo and has outsourced torture; his stimulus package gave TRILLIONS to Wall Street with just a passing nod to Main Street; his health care package doesn't even allow the advocates of single-payer to the table; and he just hired the former head of a coal company to lead the charge on the environment.

Read/listen to something other than the MSM.

[3Dubyadot]

Love the pic, it looks like she is disgusted and pulling away as Barry tries to kiss her.

[gopSTEALSyourTAXmoney]

Wrong thread.
There aren't any articles about Barry Manilow here.

[cjk002]

This is why you folks will never see a majority again.

[LittlePurpleUSA]

You know, in the Ricci case one of the plaintiffs is Latino (Vargas). If she were a "reverse racist" wouldn't she have sided with Ricci and not the defendants?

[MadHeart]

People forget that minorities have plenty of conservatives among them; you can't assume that because someone is a minority that he or she is a flaming liberal or even radical. I always thought she probably had a fairly conservative upbringing when I read about her background and then her professional experiences. I'd never even heard about Sotomayor before she was nominated; if she had set any precedents or made a name for herself, surely we would have noticed.

I would have preferred a Latino Ruth Bader Ginsberg, of course. Now there is sheer brilliance as a judge and educator, and a trailblazer for women, if you look into her background. Compared to Ginsberg, Sotomayor is fairly pedestrian as a jurist.

[dct1999]

While I think Sotomayor is qualified, I think her appointment is largely political. Obama wants to cement his support among Northeast latinos, most of whom are Puerto Rican and/or Dominican.

[mspost]

If she is qualified why do you believe her appointment is political! It seems that some Republicans are worried that they may lose the Latino votes because of Rush, Newt, Tanc, and others. I believe that is political. Sotomayor is qualified, and I am happy the President chose her.

[kapo]

So, she is not biased because she makes the same decisions as the white males around her. Clarence Thomas does the same thing, so he is not biased either, I guess. Lots of people become criminals because the criminal justice system works its magic on their impressionable minds. Could this selection process where the old white guys she tries to please, say she does not belong on their side of the communal barriers, cause her to reframe her references? Whatever is the case, Obama is a wily old dog, for having made this move.

[obamanomics]

Which begs the question: why is it that liberals don't want to have to her answer any questions?

[johnr49]

What the hell are you talking about?

[foxbat]

Actually, I think liberals would love for her to answer questions. If people would stop to really find out about her record as opposed to hearing the 2-minute clip on MSNBC of the Republican strategist calling her a hot-tempered racist and the Democratic strategist claiming that she's Mother Theresa re-incarnated, then we could get to some real discussions.

If you look at Sotomayor's record, she's probably what would be classified as BlueDog-lite. She's much more closer to center than true liberals like. Liberals are also concerned about her Catholic background too with regard to the Roe v. Wade issue although I don't think they need to be since the Court already has a five-justice Catholic majority and if being Catholic was an automatic vote against Roe v. Wade, it would be overturned already. Also, realize that she's a judge that was twice confirmed by Republican held Senate/House with a sitting Republican president. You can't tell me that the liberals don't want questions asked. What's really true is that many "big C" conservatives just don't want ANYONE on the Court that they didn't appoint. To some extent it's a little greedy since seven of the current nine justices were appointed by Republicans. Heck, four of the nine were appointed by the Bush family.

[wordvarc]

Another false suggestion by Obamanomics.

ie:

"When did you last beat your wife?"

[Soundofthunder]

Questions about what? Is she a r ac is t? Is she empathetic? Does she think Hispanics are superior to whites?

The second someone wants to submit an intelligent question, she should answer it. So far, there have been none from the right.

SOT

[cjk002]

The real question is: Why do you ha te Obama so much that you spend all your time on a left-leaning Web site making things up?

[martiniandabotoxchaser]

I do have some concerns, based on her past voting record and statements, about how truly liberal she is. Like Sandra Day O'Connor, she may go against the prevailing views of the party who nominated her. I'm concerned about litmus issues such as same-sex marriage and preserving the right of choice. Saying this...the­re is really no point in debating her merits as she will fly through the Senate hearings.

[Westof405]

Deciding discrimination cases is not based on having "Democratic" or "liberal" credentials. It is based on applying the applicable law to the facts and at the appellate level, determining whether or not there was an error by the trial court, either substantively (incorrect application of the law to the facts) or procedurally (incorrect application of procedural law).

The way this is done is by comparing what happened at the trial level with the applicable statutory or appellate case law and applying the law and prior case decisions to the present case.

The BS arguments made by Hannity, Beck, Rush, Tancredo and the other right wing extremists ignore all of this. I doubt any of them have read even one of Judge Sotomayor's opinions or could explain the standard of review on a FRCP12(b)(6) or FRCP 56 motion.

The far right doesn't care about analysis like Tom Goldstein has done on his blog; they just want to rant about how a Hispanic woman is a racist. Unfortunately, their own racism and ignorance will find a wide audience. You'll never hear a word about this study on Fox because they have no interest in the truth. Fox is no different from the Nazi or Japanese propaganda broadcast during WWII or the propaganda that comes out of North Korea.

[BBC9nch]

since you are so convinced of her qualifications, how many of her decisions have you read? I'm a liberal and I have some reservations just based on a few things I've read in this article. I don't believe everything I read but if true, there are reasons for liberals to take a second look also.

[truthartbeauty]

and Alito is a terrible tragedy having him on the highest court. might as well have put pat robertson on

[pm247]

So basically she is a "me too" judge, calculating her rulings so they don't impede her career path. What has she ever done that was not self serving? Where is the leadership, other than on affirmative action? My impression is that she has simply parlayed her identity politics at each stage and is all about herself.

[robXdion]

It does seem that way, doesn't it?

[TainoBoy]

I knew it from the start.

[Lion24]

She has no Democratic or liberal credentials. Nice going, Prez.

[TainoBoy]

Well stated

[TainoBoy]

I don't see why the Republicans are ranting at her because she fit in with them.

[MDinOK]

You're right.

[LittlePurpleUSA]

Please, explain how her decisions are right-wing.