|
||
Republican Senators Play the Affirmative Action Card
If you will pardon the expression, inviting the New Haven firefighters to appear in uniform at the Sotomayor hearing and having Frank Ricci testify was "bush." Judge Sotomayor decided more than 3000 cases. That means that at least 6000 persons or companies were pleased or displeased with her rulings. Having disgruntled persons testify at a judicial confirmation hearing serves no useful purpose. If that is the practice, then the next time the Senate prepares to fold on gun control, the doors to the Senate hearing room should be thrown open to the families of the 30,000 persons who die every year from guns.
No, the real purpose of having the firefighters appear and Mr. Ricci testify was to inflame the public and foment opposition to the nominee on this very controversial topic. Affirmative action cases are very difficult for judges. It may be apocryphal, but it is suggested that when a new judge comes on the court, the current judges instruct the clerk "to let out the dogs". Whether true or not, when I was appointed to the United States District Court, I was assigned all of the affirmative action cases in the 21 major New Jersey cities. I had a case very similar to Judge Sotomayor's instituted by the federal government to set aside a firefighter promotion test because of its disparate impact in cities in which the minorities were in the majority. I don't mean to argue here for or against affirmative action. The point is -- we as judges get it!
In declaring the test invalid, I wrote that the successful candidates and their families must ask "Why us? Their perception of the unfairness visited upon them cannot be dissipated by a discussion of principle or some broad social goal. They cannot be expected to understand why they must sacrifice for what others have wrought or why they should be singled out (to forgo everything they have worked so hard for) no matter how worthy the cause may be".
So it is unfair to condemn judges for their role in these difficult cases and for following the law (at least as it then existed). If the conservatives will forgive us this unpardonable sin, judges, indeed, feel "empathy" for those who are adversely affected by these extremely difficult decisions.
Loading comments…
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
"If that is the practice, then the next time the Senate prepares to fold on gun control, the doors to the Senate hearing room should be thrown open to the families of the 30,000 persons who die every year from guns."
Your faulty assumption is that all family members of gun violence victims support gun control. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Gun violence victims have been at the forefront of ensuring citizens have the right to bear arms for self defense
Gun victims like Suzanna Hupp were instrumental in getting CCW legalized in Texas. More recently, Nikki Goeser, whose husband was fatally wounded in a bar, was a key figure in getting Tennessee to legalize CCW in alcohol serving establishments for patrons who do not drink. Goesser had a CCW permit, but was forced to leave her gun in her car the night her husband was murdered.
Many people don't get their CCW permits until they or someone they know becomes the victim of a gun crime, showing he importance of self defense.
While I am and always will be unalterably opposed to Affirmative Action and am pleased with the Supreme Court's decision in Ricci, I agree that having disgruntled (or elated, for that matter) parties testify at confirmation hearings is unnecessary. Such testimony is highly unlikely to sway a senator's thinking; at best, it serves as nothing more than verbal ammunition that supports the senator's pre-programmed inclination.
Enough already with the Sotomayor hearings! Confirm her - I support her confirmation - and be done with it.
Judge, I am disappointed that more discussion was not centered on the decision made by the majority on the supreme. It is my understanding that they created a law to render the decision to Ricci. In my book that is activism that the conservatives whaled about all the time. Sotomayor was following precedent as how the law was written.
Another thing, the conservatives have set precedent for deciding the direction of the courts for the past 30 years and very few cultural cases reach the high courts. Most of their cases deal with high finance, commerce clause, etc. where their decisions impact us more than cultural cases. Case in point is the Exxon-Valdez oil spill that occured in Alaska did not get judicated until the Supreme Court went conservative to guarantee a decision in the Exxon's favor.
Of COURSE it's judicial activism. The conservatives on the court have a LOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGG history of being judicial activists, whereas the liberals, while occasionally activist are more often simply enforcing the available law.
The reason why nobody is saying anything on the left is that we admit that part of the court's JOB is to create case law, and so, to us, it's not activism!
And liberal judges are strict constructionists??--
See Judge H. Lee Sarokin's Profile
There is no dispute that the Supreme Court created a new standard that did not exist at the time Judge Sotomayor (rather the panel on which she sat) rendered its opinion in the Ricci case.
Equal opportunity is only reasonable--who quaranteed equal results?
Oh boo hoo hoo!
I hope that we can all feel empathy for the poor federal judges who don't have a b@lls to make a Just decision as opposed to a politically correct one.
I have yet to meet a judge, conservative or liberal, that wasn't an insufferable egomanic. You Sir, are no different.
Make up your mind! Do you want decisions based on laws or decisions based on politics. Clearly what you wanted in the Ricci case is a decision based on conservative political correctness. The judge was pointing out that some decisions based on law can seem unsympathetic to plaintiffs or defendants.
See Judge H. Lee Sarokin's Profile
Funny,I always thought of myself as a sufferable egomaniac, but thanks for sharing your enlightening insights in respect to this difficult issue.
Your "sufferable" can very easily be someone else's insufferable
It wasn't to inflame the public. It was to INFORM the public. It showed how her decisions affected real people. Perhaps the time should have been spent to allow Al Franken to tell his stories about watching tv as a kid, that should have inflamed us all.
Sheesh, people need to do their research, she was not the only judge on the case, there were 2 other judges and they were conservative judges, besides in their notes it was written that they were following precedent so judges shouldn't follow precedent again and should just make up laws? Are u also going to say that the other 2 conservative judges were racist too? For goodness sake this was not the only case decided by her and others.
They weren't nominated by Obama, Sonia was
When those two judges are up for the SCOTUS you let me know.
See Judge H. Lee Sarokin's Profile
Thank you jackbauer. In all of these discussions the fact that Judge Sotomayor was part of a panel has been totally ignored. The Ricci decision was not her decision but the Court's decision.
The horror, allowing an opposite opinion of a US Citizen....how could they? What were they thinking?
Sotomayor followed the existing law in this case. Hence, any criticism of her decision in that case would imply that she should not follow existing law in her decisions and instead should legislate from the bench. Her senate critics have her damned in either direction and then offer witnesses to bolster their madness. This is not "advice and consent" as required in the constitution.
the ricci case creates problems for me. but the biggest problem i have with sotomayor is her decision where she basically said the second amendment doesnt apply to the states. so constitution doesnt apply to the states? so since in her interpretation of the constitution, gun rights can be taken away from the states, im sure she would be okay with some states taking away woman's suffrage. how abotu slavery?
saying 2nd amendment rights dont apply to the states is flat out wrong, and if the second amendment doesnt apply to the states, then no amendments do.
One voice does not change law on any given ruling, it has to be decided by a panel of judges.
be that as it may. any judge who thinkg constitutional amendments dont apply to the states, should not be allowed to a federal judge period. let alone sit on the supreme court. the progressives may be against the 2nd amendment, and that is certainly their right. but saying states can deny constitutional rights is flat out scary. what's next? can states take away our right to free speech? according to sotomayor's logic, the answer is yes.
the 14th amendment was intended to apply the BOR to the states until the Slaughterhouse case--and it screwed the newly freed slaves ROYALLY
Not to mention the fact that before the Ricci case was decided on by the SCOTUS, the existing case law said that Judge Sotomayor and the rest of the circuit court should have decided EXACTLY the way that they did!! The case law doesn't change at the circuit court level, it is EXPLAINED at that level, and DECIDED on by the SCOTUS!!!
This is the same tactic democrats use, parading victims around for the media and public. Democrats brought out some native Alaskan children to tell their plight of no fish and higher seas. This was for some climate bill hearing.
It's all about race in America. The real fear? That the Latina babysitters, spending 8 to 10 hours raising others kids, teaching them Love, Kindness, and Spanish, are their true role models. These kids will grow up, and find Love and happiness in the Latin World.
Isn't evidence that is inflammatory not permitted in a courtroom. Right-wing radio and tv present hours and hours of inflammatory talk---meant to the appeal to listener's most primitive instincts. Of course, they would not be truly Republican if they did not turn around and say they are the party of reasoned argument, facts and calm analysis.
Thank for this post..! I thought the SC decision was split.
testking
Surely 3000 cases equal 6000, not 3000, parties either pleased or displeased.
I guess the either/or aspect of that statement was lost on you. Meaning that in the economy of words, that the judge used, you would be required to understand that there were 3000 opinions on either side. See how that works?!
Therefore, there was no need for the snark, IMHO.
See Judge H. Lee Sarokin's Profile
johnie- Thanks for defending me ---but see that I have given in.
You caught that one too??
See Judge H. Lee Sarokin's Profile
Simon - I am persuaded and changed it to 6000.
The subject of this thread was the GOP's manipulation
of the public's distaste for the law on affirmative action
to slander judges, and make it appear that the law was the
judge's fault-when it was senators and congressmen
who drafted and passed the law.
Never mind the facts. The gop hypocrites wanted Sotmayor
to disregard the 1964 civil rights law ,and the precedents set-
in the interest of "fairness".
They nomally call that "judicial activism"
But we all know they like judicial activism,-if it renders a
"conservative" outcome.
"Judicial activism" is a court decision they do not like.
And "liberal media" is a story they don't like.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
