• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • The Supreme Court vs. Sotomayor

    The chief complaint with Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s handling of Ricci, the New Haven firefighters case, is not that her court reached the wrong result but that it shirked its duty to give the case its full consideration, in an obvious attempt to bury it.

    That effort, of course, did not work, and the Supreme Court released an elegant decision in the case by Justice Kennedy, who hints at the strangeness of Sotomayor’s handling of the case. His description:

    After full briefing and argument by the parties, the Court of Appeals affirmed in a one-paragraph, unpublished summary order; it later withdrew that order, issuing in its place a nearly identical, one-paragraph per curiam opinion adopting the District Court’s reasoning. Three days later, the Court of Appeals voted 7 to 6 to deny rehearing en banc, over written dissents by Chief Judge Jacobs and Judge Cabranes.

    Very unlike Sotomayor’s court, the Supreme Court saw the importance of the case and the major issues that it presented instantly, recognizing that it was one of the very, very few cases worthy of a place on the Court’s docket.

    This action presents two provisions of Title VII to be interpreted and reconciled, with few, if any, precedents in the courts of appeals discussing the issue. Depending on the resolution of the statutory claim, a fundamental constitutional question could also arise. We found it prudent and appropriate to grant certiorari.

    Yes, it is significant, and objectionable, that Judge Sotomayor chose to endorse what the Supreme Court found to be a transparently discriminatory practice on the part of New Haven when it sought to deny promotions to firefighters because of their skin color.

    But it is, in a way, even worse that her court refused to give the case a fair hearing and reasoned decision—something that she would do again in Maloney v. Cuomo by declining to provide any consideration of whether the Second Amendment right to self-protection is a “fundamental” right that must be observed by the states. Doing justice, after all, is the duty of a judge. Shirking tough or inconvenient cases is incompatible with the judicial role.

    Posted in Legal [slideshow_deploy]

    6 Responses to The Supreme Court vs. Sotomayor

    1. Ginsburg's arro says:

      Ginsburg's dissent is a template for liberal interpretation of "equal opportunity". Her conclusion that the plaintiff's had no "vested right to promotion" is stunning in it's ignorance. The sole purpose of the open test was qualification for promotion and to take the position that an expectation of promotion engendered by virtue of successful completion of the test was an illogical assumption is to declare that the test itself was little more than a form of racial winnowing. Would Ginsburg's opinion on that "vested right" be the same had the demographic of the testees been reversed? She goes even further into the fog of liberalism by saying noone "received promotions in preference" to the plaintiffs. Does she believe that a failure to honor a contract with one group is acceptable as long as noone else benefits from that failure? Justice denied is just?

    2. Pingback: Sotomayor Overturned « The Climate Heretic

    3. Roger S., MA. says:

      The issue is whether Sotomayor would be qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. Apparently not, being either stupid or lazy or ignorant or subjectively feeling-driven in her judgements. A special, "secret", mixture of all of these ? Again, who knows ? Who can tell from this evidence ? What did her "female, Latina, soul" have to tell her in this legal context ? Would she, herself, be aware of her bias, let alone know it in sufficient detail so as to exclude it from her judgements? Your guess is as good as mine, or anybody's, and THAT scares me.

      As for the anti-discrimination laws, isn't it about time to phase them out ? Based on the premise the cure is as bad as the disease ? Ever try squaring a circle, or make a square peg fit a round hole ? The cause of justice cannot be served by a more equal distribution of injustice.

    4. Barb mn says:

      This is where the weeds need to be pulled. She is not fit for anything in any government of a free and equal rights society. Why isn't this grounds for removal!?.

    5. Frank, VA says:

      The Supreme Court is certainly not the forum for axe grinding…

    6. Pingback: Pond’rings » News of Note

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.