Sonia Sotomayor Ricci v DeStefano case

As I understood the case, firefighters took a test to get a promotion. All of the ones that got top grades were white. Because no minorities took the test and they couldn't force results for them, the test was invalidated and nobody got promoted.

It landed on Sotomyer and she decided against them for BS reasons without any regard to the rights THEY have as citizens.

From Heritage.org:

Equal Opportunity: In Ricci v. Destefano, Sotomayor joined an unsigned opinion rejecting a lawsuit from a group of firefighters who claimed the city of New Haven, Connecticut violated their civil rights by invalidating the results of a test administered to fill 15 captain and lieutenant vacancies. The lead plaintiff, Frank Ricci, battled dyslexia and spent months studying for the test, which he passed, but because no African-American firefighters passed he was denied a promotion. Sotomayor's curt rejection of Ricci's claims prompted President Bill Clinton appointed Second Circuit Judge Jose Cabranes to write: "The opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case. This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal."

I understand that 69% of her decisions get overturned by a higher court.

Why do we actually want someone like this on the Supreme Court?

She may have got that one wrong. Apparently the supreme court is expected to overturn the ruling. However, according to the article in the Economist she is less predictable than some on the right make her out to be.

Economist:

How Ms Sotomayor will shape the court is hard to discern. In cases of alleged discrimination because of race, sex or age, she has usually sided with the plaintiffs. But she once ruled that the right to free speech barred New York City from firing an office worker for posting a racist letter. And on one occasion she ruled against an abortion-rights group. Her decisions as an appeals-court judge will be examined minutely in the coming weeks. But up until now, she has been obliged to defer to precedents set by the Supreme Court. Once on the Supreme Court, she will be free to rule as she pleases, for two, three or even four decades to come.

The entire point is to institutionalize racism against white people.

Chris

I have not reviewed any of Sotomayer's Opinions, BUT I find it hard to believe that ANY District Court Judge that has a reversal rate of the degree suggested, namely 69%, would EVER get appointed to an Appellate Court and she is currently sitting on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. Whatever a judges reversal rate is, however, it obviously is of only those matters that were appealed, so the question would seem to be what percentage get appealed, and of those, what percentage get reversed as opposed to being remanded for further proceedings consistent with the findings & directions of the Appellate Court.

I also very much doubt that she is in any way interested in institutionalizing racism against white folks. A clear majority of both the House & the Senate are white and if they believed that, I don't see how she would have been appointed to even the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and I must presume that her record as a trial judge was reviewed before that appointment was made AND IT WILL CLEARLY BE REVIEWED AGAIN for this nomination.

One must distinguish between RACISM and MERELY carrying out the various civil rights laws on the books.

The following link presents what appears to me to be the real germaine arguments the case presents. It is short and I direct readers to it.

I suspect that the 3 Judge Appellate Panel on which Sotomayer sat, and the apparent issuance of a Per Curiam M.O.J.[ Motion on Judgement] on appeal, arguably EXACTLY perserves the Opinion & Record below for further Petition for Cert to the Supremes. By doing this the 'reverse discrimination' issue remains framed as it was presented to the Second Circuit. There are many experienced litigators who view a Per Curiam Opinion as evidence that none of the judges had the balls to sign it, suggesting serious issues with the [facts] and record below. Judge for yourself. LOL

www.slate.com/id/2219037/

Slate is notorious for seeing what it wants to see in order to support the Liberal agenda.

Maybe you can take the time to watch the following videos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXS6AoNCr_Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BssHWJcx4B4

One would have thought that with a black president and a female as Speaker, not to mention the complete diversity in the prior administration, this would mark the end of affirmative action and racism.

Indeed, having people in those positions doesn't seem to be diminishing this as an issue, rather it seems like they have an attitude of "this is our big chance to get even."

In turn, that means these issues will have no end.

The key word being used in the YouTube Videos is the term

POLICY,

as in "I know the courts really don't make policy."

SURPRISE !!!

FROM BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY -----------------------------

POLICY --The general principles by which a government is guided in its management of public affairs. SEE PUBLIC POLICY

PUBLIC POLICY -- Broadly, principles and standards regarded by the legislature OR BY THE COURTS [Emph. Ours] as being of fundemental concern to the state and the whole of society.

Courts are always entitled to void contracts that are violative of 'public policy' and in certain instances, they are the deciders of 'policy,' even though the legislature may be the creator of policy.

FOR THOSE WHO DON'T READ THE WASHINGTON POST ELECTRONIC EDITION, THE FOLLOWING IS FROM THE SUNDAY 5-31-2009 COPY

-----------------------------------------------------------------

SUPREME COURT

Court Watch: An Analysis of Sotomayor's Decisions on Race-Related Cases

By Garance Franke-Ruta
The indispensable SCOTUSBlog, from the Washington-based firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, has published an analysis of every race-related decision made by appellate Judge Sonia Sotomayor, finding that she rarely disagreed with her colleagues on cases involving claims of discrimination.

/// .... ///

"Of the 96 cases, Judge Sotomayor and the panel rejected the claim of discrimination roughly 78 times and agreed with the claim of discrimination 10 times," he continued; "the remaining 8 involved other kinds of claims or dispositions. Of the 10 cases favoring claims of discrimination, 9 were unanimous."

"Of the roughly 75 panel opinions rejecting claims of discrimination, Judge Sotomayor dissented 2 times," Goldstein writes.

"The numbers relating to unpublished opinions continued to hold as well. In the roughly 55 cases in which the panel affirmed district court decisions rejecting a claim of employment discrimination or retaliation, the panel published its opinion or order only 5 times," Goldstein writes.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"In sum, in an eleven-year career on the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor has participated in roughly 100 panel decisions involving questions of race and has disagreed with her colleagues in those cases (a fair measure of whether she is an outlier) a total of 4 times. ... Given that record, it seems absurd to say that Judge Sotomayor allows race to infect her decisionmaking."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IT IS MY OPINION that the summation from above concludes that by Sotomayer diverging from other judge's opinions on the panels on which sat only 4 out of over 100 times in cases involving RACE, CLEARLY SUPPORTS THE POSITION that she is a 'main line jurist' appears to be a completely valid point.

IN MY OPINION that also means that shw will likely side with Roe v. Wade, et. seq., on abortion and right to life issues and will not likely make any inroads on cases following D.C. v. Heller, the 2d Amendment gun rights case.

RIPE FOR GUIDANCE are cases addressing 'gay marriage,' or 'civil unions' and especially interstate inheritance and collateral issues related to transsexual marriages, where either or both parties are transsexuals. Perhaps another matter would be the 'status' of a marriage where one of the parties undergoes gender reassignment and the parfties continue to live together thereafter and continue to hold themselves out to others as still being in union. Early cases often claimed that the non changed party was eligible for an annulment [not merely a divorce] which would thus [obviously retroactively] impact the 'birth status' of any children born to the parties as well as inheritance rights, especially in the absence of a will. IT IS MY OPINION that the children are thus 'arguably' victimized twice. Firstly, by the actions of one of their two parents and secondly by actions of SUPPOSED public policy needs of the state either where the birth parent dies or where the property is located. Further IT IS MY OPINION that while a state has traditionally had a completely legitimate interest in advancing the interest of hetrosexual marriage for the benefit of ESPECIALLY any children of such a marriage, that TODAY, as scientific and medical understanding has advanced substantially [as have toxins that can effect genetic alteration of DNA], that we 'as a people' need to STOP PUNISHING members of the GLBT [gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender] communities for being who they apparently are. While it is a fundemental principle of democracy that there is majority rule, it is a concurrent principle that legitimate minority rights be recognized, especially involving matters that probably everyone today at least recognizes as being real [does anyone not know at least one gay person today ???]

Retaining traditional values NEVER constitutes proactively "punishing" anyone. Indeed, the relentless push to "change everything" is punishing those that are satisfied with things being as they always were.

There is an old saying: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Once the traditional definition of marriage is defeated, a reason "why not" will be weak when 3 or more people want to "marry," or someone wants to marry their brother or sister, or even if they want to marry their car. Instead of incorporating and selling shares of stock, 1,000 people could marry.

What would there be as a reason "why not?"

I really have ZERIO issue[s] with the traditional defination of marriage and believe that it would be 'much wiser' to call, 'gay unions' by another term,such as civil unions, but I believe the reason this being opposed by the GLBT community, is there is no case law adopting both inheritance and other domestic relations laws ACROSS STATE LINES.

When I was a young man, I can well recall marriage laws against interracial marriage also, though Solomom & Sheba apparently disregarded any such notions even way back then.