GOP Jumps On Ricci, But Sotomayor's Confirmation Chances Remain Strong

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - GOP Jumps On Ricci, But Sotomayor's Confirmation Chances Remain Strong stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS


First Posted: 06-29-09 12:05 PM   |   Updated: 06-29-09 12:46 PM

I Like ItI Don’t Like It
Sotofire

The Supreme Court's ruling that a group of white firefighters were unfairly denied promotions based on their race was the worst of three possible outcomes for Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Still, it remains unlikely to dampen her hopes of confirmation to the Supreme Court.

In a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court reversed a ruling Sotomayor had made while on the Second District Court of Appeals. The city of New Haven, it determined, had been wrong to scrap a promotion exam for its firefighters out of fear that it would be subject to legal action because none of the individuals who passed were Black or Hispanic. In the process, the ruling in Ricci v. DeStefano thrusts the issue of race back into the political debate . And it provides critics of Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee another chance to paint her as out-of-touch in her jurisprudence.

Within minutes of the announcement of the decision, the Republican National Committee had blasted out to reporters a summary of the case, noting that this was the seventh time a Sotomayor decision had been reversed by the Supreme Court. The conservative Judicial Confirmation Network, meanwhile, compared Sotomayor's decision in Ricci to "a pilot error
resulting in a bad plane crash. And now the pilot is being offered to fly Air Force One," the group added.

In a conference call planned by the another conservative group, The Federalist Society, less than an hour-and-a-half after the ruling came down, Roger Clegg, president and general counsel for the Center for Equal Opportunity, said the case was "absolutely" a rebuke of Sotomayor's decision.

"It certainly gives the Senate Judiciary Committee a lot to ask her about," he said. "And the fact that the nominee is out of synch with the president's own legal experts who, of course drafted and filed the administration's brief... suggests we have somebody who is quite out of synch with the right approach to the law in this area."

Nevertheless, in talking to advocates working in favor of the Sotomayor nomination, there is no sense of panic. "She's gonna end up on the Supreme Court," said one high-ranking Democrat, who described the Ricci decision as a bump in the road.

While Clegg and others on the Federalist Society call argued that Court "unanimously reversed" Sotomayor's ruling (with all nine Justices arguing that the case needed to be reconsidered by lower courts), progressives are making note that four Justices, including the retiring David Souter, did not directly refute Sotomayor's legal reasoning.

Ironically, the argument being used in Sotomayor's defense is that she was merely following precedent when deciding the case. Those defending her argued that it was the Supreme Court itself that played the role of activist.

Story continues below
advertisement

Another Democrat who is working on her nomination argued that federal law essentially bound Sotomayor when she affirmed a district court ruling upholding New Haven's decision to disregard the promotion exams. "To do anything but would have been judicial activism," the source said. There were, after all, earlier decision made by the same Second Circuit Court of Appeals panel that preceded and reflected the ruling made by Sotomayor and the other two members of her three-judge panel.

The Supreme Court, Sotomayor's defenders argue, had a different purview when it came to the case: interpreting the law's meaning as opposed to simply interpreting judicial standards. As such, in deciding Ricci the Court essentially created new law, holding that employer can only reconsider a promotion exam when it has a "strong basis in evidence" that they could be held liable if they certify the test.

"Five justices were uncomfortable with the twenty five-year-old rule in the Second Circuit, which says that employers have broad discretion to reconsider exams that result in one race doing better than another," said the Democrat activist working on the Sotomayor nomination.

In the end, what may have hurt Sotomayor more than having her decision reversed by the Court is that she didn't make a more detailed argument in the first place. Her three-judge panel nearly had its decision revisited by the entire Second District Court itself, with only a slim majority (seven out of the thirteen judges) ruling to not re-consider the case.

On Monday, moreover, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy seemed to agree with critics who considered Sotomayor's panel dismissive of the Ricci case. In writing the majority opinion, Kennedy noted that the appeals court's rejection of the white firefighter's appeal had come in the form of "a one-paragraph, unpublished summary order."

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

The Supreme Court's ruling that a group of white firefighters were unfairly denied promotions based on their race was the worst of three possible outcomes for Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Still, it remains ...
The Supreme Court's ruling that a group of white firefighters were unfairly denied promotions based on their race was the worst of three possible outcomes for Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Still, it remains ...
Loading...
 
Report Corrections
 
Comments
204
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next › Last » (5 pages total)
- TheKurgan9 I'm a Fan of TheKurgan9 5 fans permalink

Look discrimination is discrimination. Plain and simple. Nobody should be discriminated against including yes - even WHITE PEOPLE. Aren't our rights just as important?

So either you are for discrimination or against it. Affirmative action, quotas, and the like is a form of discrimination. There should be ONE standard for all, no more, no less. Why is that so hard? Two wrongs don't make a right. As Ruth Ginsburg claims - the history of New Haven warrants the city's reasoning to throw out the exam. Sorry Ruthy but I never enslaved, discriminated against, or hurt anyone ever in my life. I shouldn't have to pay for the actions or injustices from others.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:17 PM on 06/30/2009
- TheKurgan9 I'm a Fan of TheKurgan9 5 fans permalink

How come the same thing can not be said against the democrats??? - the Democrats' shameful treatment of Miguel Estrada, the first Hispanic nominee to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, cannot be overlooked. As you may recall, unable to block Estrada's nomination and knowing he would be confirmed if a full Senate vote was allowed, Democrats used an unprecedented and unjust partisan filibuster to prevent a vote from ever taking place.

So how is it that the democrats get a free pass with the Hispanic community? I'll tell you why....bec­ause in this country it is more than OK - it is acceptable, to discriminate against a conservative - which Mr. Estrada was. Hispanics have been brainwashed by the left to think that the dems have the interest of Latino's at heart....L­IE...as long as the individual in question agrees with their liberal agenda then sure, dems have their back.

If it was so important for the dems to promote diversity on the SC then why did they slander and attack a very competent and capable Mr. Estrada?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:40 AM on 06/30/2009
- dancucich I'm a Fan of dancucich 15 fans permalink

"No one has given a straight answer on her abortion views yet."

And they wont get them either. In fact , no judge in recent times
has ever come out and announced their position on a current controversy
during confirmation hearings .

To do so would be prejudging, and could also be interpreted
as making a tacit promise to rule a certain way.
Thus it would be highly inappropriate for her to do so..

She can of course say how she approaches her decision making
in general terms.And she can also say how she reagards the doctrine
of Stare Decisis- which means "stand by the decision". (previous precedents)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:56 AM on 06/30/2009
- dancucich I'm a Fan of dancucich 15 fans permalink

Judge Sotomayor has heard and ruled in several hundred cases, and less 10 have been reversed. That suggests that 97-98% of the time she was legally correct. Thats sounds like a pretty good judge!

Actually being reversed doesnt necessarily mean that she was wrong at all.(parti­cularly in a 5-4 split)

It means she was outvoted by a 5-4 majority of the current sitting justices on a matter which is as much about opinion as fact-that's why court rulings by individual appellate judges are more often than not, called "opinions"-because thats all they are.

Anytime a judge on a panel is in the minority, as four justices were today,
it only means they were outvoted on a particular issue. It's quite possible the majorit in Roe Vs Wade may be "reversed" in the future-it's happened before in the
history of our republic.

THis is much ado about nothing

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:47 AM on 06/30/2009
- S1m0n I'm a Fan of S1m0n 98 fans permalink
photo

If Sotomayor and the Supremes agreed on everything, there'd be no need and no reason to appoint her to it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:09 AM on 06/30/2009
- mergina I'm a Fan of mergina 86 fans permalink
photo

The dems should be very worrried if she even remotely turns out to be anti-choice or strongly pro-life. No one has given a straight answer on her abortion views yet.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:39 PM on 06/29/2009
- TheKurgan9 I'm a Fan of TheKurgan9 5 fans permalink

What views do you wish she has? Are you for partial birth abortion like Mr. Obama is? If you are, then I suggest you do your research as to what this gruesome procedure really is.

I believe everyone has the right to believe what they want, but how Obama can be for partial birth and at the same time call himself a christian is completely baffling. For those of us who are christians the man is not fooling us.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:44 AM on 06/30/2009
- mergina I'm a Fan of mergina 86 fans permalink
photo

I am for the rights of a woman to choose what to do with her own body, and NEVER be told what she must do with it, especially by a man. I do support any abortion if it is deemed necessary to save a womans life, or to spare a young woman the pain and horror of giving birth due to rape or incest, especially at an early age.

Christians should simply GET OVER THEMSELVES on this issue. Because you choose to follow a man-made religion, or formulate your own theories about when life begins DOES NOT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT, IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM, to tell a woman what to do with her body, or to spare a young child who has kept her abuse quiet for too long.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:14 AM on 06/30/2009
photo

Republicans will never give a hoot about civil rights - ever! Unless of course its to protect white men against 'gasp' missing an opportunity in the workplace - oh wait - they would have been promoted anyway.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:08 PM on 06/29/2009
- TheKurgan9 I'm a Fan of TheKurgan9 5 fans permalink

Civil rights should be for everyone! And thank God the Supreme Court recognizes this. Can I ask you a serious question? What is wrong with protecting everyone's rights, including those who are white? Do you have a grudge against whites? Do you feel that whites have had their day? The fact is that if the SC ruled in favor of DeStefano then what would happen?

1) The city would give another exam.
2) Let's say that the same thing happened as the first exam - what then? Would the city eliminate that test? And then the question must be asked - when would this stop? Once the city has the desired ratio of whites to minorities. What is that ratio? What would be an acceptable ratio so that the city could avoid a law suit by the NAACP?
3) What if the majority of black fire fighters decided that they weren't going to study for the promotions exam because the city will just throw out the exam and then lower the standards AGAIN. C'mon!

Do you not see how this could have turned out? Instead we are left with a decision that says, If you pass the exam you get the promotion.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:34 AM on 06/30/2009
- TheSheeple I'm a Fan of TheSheeple 2 fans permalink

Classic female answer. Don't promote because of my gender and I'll sue you. White male = the only group legally discriminated against.
Two wrongs make a right as long as women get preferential treatment in the work place.
Bahhh Baahhh

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:17 AM on 06/30/2009
photo

Today's Supreme Court ruling touches a lot more than firefighters. I am just one baby-boomer who has rode the "Fear of Lawsuit" mindset roller coaster. I did my tours of duty with 30 years in the U.S. Postal Service. The "Talk" was always about being very cautious about unfair hiring practices, and the unspoken fear-of-the-lawsuit when hiring. We bent over backwards to make sure that veterans were given every opportunity to join the postal team, but quietly over the years the desire of upper managment to make things right has moved the hiring process into an awkward process. You can see examples of the change in the hiring process at any of the District offices. What used to be minorities are now 'in-charge'. The ratio of women to men is five to one at the higher levels. The Supreme Court has very slowly incovered a large festering wound in today's workplace.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:28 PM on 06/29/2009
- loria I'm a Fan of loria 152 fans permalink
photo

Maybe the ration of women to men in the higher levels is because the women are the most qualified. I am not quite sure how to interpret the sentence "what used to be minories are now "in-charge".

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:48 PM on 06/29/2009

You say that maybe the ratio is because women are most qualified. However, many people would feel it to be unacceptable to make that statement if it were reversed. In my opinion, we'd be in a much better place if race, gender, sexual orientation, etc never entered into these decisions. Then you could simply hire or promote the best candidates. Whatever statistics came out of it would just be random, reflecting the most qualified individuals.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:32 PM on 06/29/2009
- Okieborn I'm a Fan of Okieborn 63 fans permalink

Judge Sotomayor needs to be seated !!
This lady will finally bring a bright light of justice to this great nation !!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:10 PM on 06/29/2009

It's over GOP, she's in. Move on to another group to alienate, LOL

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:33 PM on 06/29/2009
- loria I'm a Fan of loria 152 fans permalink
photo

I don't think they are quite done alienating Latinos yet. They'll fight this battle against Sotomayor without one shred of thought about how they will lose the Latino vote for years to come.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:19 PM on 06/29/2009
- Pquilson I'm a Fan of Pquilson 9 fans permalink

the Supreme Court case overruling Judge Sotomayor'd decision, as part of the Appeals court panel is what brings justice. The Appelate court ruling did nothing of the kind.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:17 PM on 06/29/2009
- loria I'm a Fan of loria 152 fans permalink
photo

I had to read your comment three times to figure out what you were saying. Even now I am not quite sure.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:44 PM on 06/29/2009
photo

Reading her argument, it doesn't disqualify her. She made a brilliant case for her decision. Besides this was decided 5-4. How does that disqualify her,without disqualifying the other four who were approved.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:26 PM on 06/29/2009
- Cubanmom I'm a Fan of Cubanmom 8 fans permalink

The GOP was never, ever, for Civil Rights, nor Equal Opportunity, why should they be now?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:39 PM on 06/29/2009
- sbrown80 I'm a Fan of sbrown80 43 fans permalink

It's interesting tht ALL of the minorities except one Hispanic guy did worse than the 20 white guys. All of the minorities. Yet some how these Republicans who cant even speak correct english think this was fair.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:52 PM on 06/29/2009

This will happen from time to time on a test. Perhaps there were simply more qualified people who happened to be white this time. Next time, blacks could pass disproportionately. Either way, the results should not be discarded simply because of the race of those who passed. I have not seen any evidence that the test was actually racially biased. There has just been insinuation that it was. But it could also just have been a statistical anomaly.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:35 PM on 06/29/2009
- Pquilson I'm a Fan of Pquilson 9 fans permalink

Check your history. The 1964 and 1965 civil rights acts were passed by Republicans, not democrats.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:18 PM on 06/29/2009
- loria I'm a Fan of loria 152 fans permalink
photo

JFK and Johnson were Republicans?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:23 PM on 06/29/2009
- loria I'm a Fan of loria 152 fans permalink
photo

You need to check your history. The Congressmen who opposed the passage of the Civil Rights act were from the South. The opposition had more to do with region than party. The CRA was initiated by JFK, strengthened by a NY Dem House leader, stalled by a Southern Dem and ultimately pushed through by the Dem House leader with the support of President Johnson, a fiece advocate of CRA. Once in the Senate it was the Southern Block of Senators (R & D) that filibustered the bill. In the end the Civil Rights Act was passed by Democrats and Republicans who lived outside the South.
Here's the real numbers and they have nothing to do with Republicans passing the CRA.

The original House version:

Y/N

Southern Democrats: 7-87
Southern Republicans: 0-10
Northern Democrats: 145-9
Northern Republicans: 138-24
The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1-20
Southern Republicans: 0-1
Northern Democrats: 45-1
Northern Republicans: 27-5

Tell us again how Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act. Please do your home work first.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:39 PM on 06/29/2009
- bluessss82 I'm a Fan of bluessss82 138 fans permalink
photo

Ly!ng id!ocy.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:51 PM on 06/29/2009

I believe you should update your history. The tables turned when Democrat Lyndon Johnson signed the civil rights act and racist Democrats fled to the Republican Party. Strom Thurmond, once a Democrat, then a Dixiecrat, joined the Republican Party. Other southern politicians with his philosophy became Republicans and soon were ruling the Republican party in the south, then gradually took over in other areas.
As a southerner whose great grandfather went north and freed his slaves during the Civil War, I grew up as a Republican. But when the Republicans took in Strom, and then Strom took over the southern wing of the party, I went the other way, becoming a Democrat.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:37 PM on 06/29/2009
- magic3400 I'm a Fan of magic3400 9 fans permalink
photo

There was no way that they (the misguided 5) were not going to reverse her...I bet my house on it (I'm typing from my house right now BTW).

The Repubs are so predictable, but the sad thing is that they use government for their own benefit.

This case should have been sent back to the lower court to let them figure out how the city should proceed. Instead, the high court just "wrote" new law...soun­ds like activism to me.

I never thought the City of New Haven's argument was sound, they should have been forced to do the follwoing:

1. If they thought the first test was flawed, they should have had several independent agencies (completely independent of each other) each develop a test and combine them.

2. Hold all promotions and throw out the first test score, but maintain them to compare to the new scores (they would be able to determine if the first was flawed).

3. Make the test only part of the process for promotion. They should also include a fire fighters jacket (personnel record) and a review board.

If they are not doing that, they can't possibly be promoting the most qualified. A written test alone will never give you the best possible persons for command positions.

3.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:25 PM on 06/29/2009
- TheKurgan9 I'm a Fan of TheKurgan9 5 fans permalink

The bottom line is that ALL of the firefighters were granted the same opportunity - no more, no less! Whatever issues there are with the test:

1) The city hired an independent company with the sole purpose of designing an UNBIASED EXAM.
2) Upon completion of the designed exam, the city deemed the examination to be completely fair and unbiased - how do we know this? They issued that exam.
3) The firefighters who scored the highest on the exam were in line for promotion. Let's not forget that 22 African Americans and 41 Whites passed the exam, yet only the 20 highest scores would qualify for promotion.
4) What should the city have done then? They should have approached the 22 African American men and encouraged them to study harder next time around because they were so close to getting the requisite promotional grade - if the city so desired racial diversity in the department.
5) Gary Tinney - the overweight, lazy individual who failed the Captains exam and is the sole reason why this case went to the SC to begin with because he threatened the city he would sue - has been caught by firefighters of all colors of sleeping on the job (in his office), fighting in bars, and lacked the effort to study - if he focused half as much on studying as he did picketing and whining, then maybe he would be captain.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:11 AM on 06/30/2009
- magic3400 I'm a Fan of magic3400 9 fans permalink
photo

if you are asking me, they should do what most if not all departments are doing...I just outlined it above.

Both Fire and Police are using the model I just mentioned.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:39 AM on 06/30/2009
- Petey131 I'm a Fan of Petey131 29 fans permalink

So was Judge Sotomayor the only judge that ruled on this?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:55 PM on 06/29/2009
- bluemike I'm a Fan of bluemike 5 fans permalink

The subject is always controversial. Social justice in America has been a long time coming. I'm retired now, but three times in my work life a sort of balancing affected me. Once a woman was promoted because I was promoted. Once a less qualified woman was selected into an academic position because the faculty didn't have enough women. She called me a year later and spilled the beans. Once a woman was promoted over me and I later found out from a person in personnel that she got the job on quota, not qualifications. Each event changed the course of my life in some way. I worked and studied alongside people of color and women who had been given opportunities because of their race or sex, and I think they were not only some of the finest people I knew, but that they richly, historically, deserved them. I think all of these programs have, and had, the goal of making a better society. I also think the time for balancing and quotas is now about past. Viigilance and awareness of injustice is more important.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:04 PM on 06/29/2009
- sbrown80 I'm a Fan of sbrown80 43 fans permalink

Maybe an unqualified white male took your spot. Y does your privilege make you believe every promoted white person is qualified?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:12 PM on 06/29/2009
- loria I'm a Fan of loria 152 fans permalink
photo

As soon as they balance education and give all children an equal opportunity for an education I might be with you. But, here in SC we have an entire region called the Corridor of Shame. It's the region President Obama has spoken of. A majority of the students are black and poor. The schools are falling apart and they are seriously underfunded. Correct that situation first, and I will say that our country is ready to move into a new era. Until then I will not agree that we have come so far that discrimination doesn't continue to exist.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:00 PM on 06/29/2009
- scrzbill I'm a Fan of scrzbill 70 fans permalink
photo

Damn republican activist judges. We want our constitution back. This is a call to arms for all liberals. The conservatives are out to destroy america and remake it in the image of a self righteous, bible thumping, christofascist, theocracy. They have more rights in Iran than liberals do in the USA.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:33 PM on 06/29/2009
- felidaeus I'm a Fan of felidaeus 2 fans permalink

What? WTF does this have to do with republicans? Or bible thumping? Or "christofa­scinazihit­lerism?

A bunch of men were denied the promotion they had earned because not enough non-whites had qualified. That is clear and simple discrimination. Sotomayor had to follow judicial precedent, which said you have to let minorities in, while the supreme court said, yes you did, but if none qualified you couldn't deny those who did. That's all there is to it.

You have a serious persecution complex.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:21 PM on 06/29/2009
- CATNIP1 I'm a Fan of CATNIP1 2 fans permalink

It is my understanding that this was a new test and the contents haven't been revealed. Why not? If some of the judges on the Supreme Court created a new law, isn't this called judical activism? All the activist judges were Republican and makes me think they might want to see Sotomayor lose the position. This is the seventh time her rulings have been reversed with something like 3000 cases been sent to the high court and been affirmed. Doesn't seam like such a big deal to me. There are other judges with worst records. I wonder if some are on the bench right now. Need to check that out.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:50 PM on 06/29/2009
- scrzbill I'm a Fan of scrzbill 70 fans permalink
photo

Serious persecuition complex? What is that? You mean tea party stuff or the Glen Beck comedy hour? Or Bachmann? Or the government is going to put us in camps? What does this have to do with right wing. bible thumping, christofascist republicans that want a theocracy? They are the ones screaming about activist judges. The law was clear before SCOTUS rewrote it, 5 of them anyway, making them activist judges. 5 republican christofascists. I have a right to be against bible thumping, self righteous, bigoted republican theocrats that are trying to make this country into a christian Iran. This is a call for all liberals to stand up. Whats your problem? You come over from RED STATE? I would diagnosis your illnesses but the obvious doesn't need discussion.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:08 PM on 06/29/2009
- doug108 I'm a Fan of doug108 19 fans permalink

The white man is on the rise!! Wooooooooo­oooooooooo­o!!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:10 PM on 06/29/2009
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next › Last » (5 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect