SCOTUS says that Sotomayor screwed up, and screwed the firefighters. Kind of frightening that it’s only 5-4.
[Noon update]
“…not a single justice thought that Judge Sotomayor acted correctly in granting summary judgment for the City of New Haven.”
But let’s put her on the highest bench in the land.
[Update a few minutes later]
She essentially committed judicial malpractice.
That even Justice Ginsberg and the dissenters would have remanded — undoing what Judge Sotomayor did — confirms that Sotomayor is a far-left liberal judicial activist who ignores the law and rules on her own personal agenda, even beyond the current liberals on the Court.
There is nothing moderate, mainstream, or nonideological about that. This demonstrates that the White House spin on this nominee is a pure fabrication.
Usually, poor performance in any profession is not rewarded with the highest job offer in the entire profession.
What Judge Sotomayor did in Ricci was the equivalent of a pilot error resulting in a bad plane crash. And now the pilot is being offered to fly Air Force One.
I hope that this is a major issue at confirmation hearings.
[Update about 5 EDT]
More thoughts from Richard Epstein.
I am reading the decision now, but from what I have seen in the Syllabus, the court provided fairly clear-cut reasoning. The long and the short of it is that the city failed to provide any strong evidence to argue necessity for throwing out the test results (i.e. they didn’t establish any realistic basis for arguing that the test was biased, in fact quite the opposite seems to be the case), and their determination that they had to do so to avoid a suit was explicitly rejected by the court.
I haven’t read the concurring opinions or Ginsburg’s dissent, but it looks like the good guys won this round…
Definitely a slap at Sodomizer, but Disparate Impact survives. As usual Scalia sums it up perfectly:
Sailers all over it btw.
B-but — she’s a Wise Latina! How could she be wrong?? *lefty head asplode*
What Judge Sotomayor did in Ricci was the equivalent of a pilot error resulting in a bad plane crash. And now the pilot is being offered to fly Air Force One.
That’s utterly ridiculous hyperbole. She had four other judges agree with her. We can properly criticise the decision, which looks wrong, and we should, but this stretches the point till it breaks.
Yours,
Tom
Are you disputing this:even Justice Ginsberg and the dissenters would have remanded?
Four of the justices upheld the ruling, but they didn’t agree with her.
I suspect that this will be an issue at confirmation – what else is there to argue about?
If you look at a less partisan analysis of the case, from SCOTUSBlog, you see things like:
“To the contrary, Justice Kennedy” [majority opinion] “almost seemingly goes out of his way not to criticize the decision below, notwithstanding that the Supreme Court takes a dramatically different view of the legal question.”
Also discussing the majority opinion: “The Court indicates that the state of the law before today’s ruling was “a difficult inquiry,” and that its “holding today clarifies how Title VII applies.” It rejects the plaintiffs’ outright attack on the Second Circuit’s decision as “overly simplistic and too restrictive.”
Doesn’t sound like “legal malpractice” to me.
The 11:00 turnip truck, right on time.
McGehee – namecalling may have worked in junior high as a debate technique, but it’s been a while since I’ve been in junior high.
“The Court indicates that the state of the law before today’s ruling was “a difficult inquiry,” and that its “holding today clarifies how Title VII applies.” It rejects the plaintiffs’ outright attack on the Second Circuit’s decision as “overly simplistic and too restrictive.”
It could have been difficult because of the race issue not the law issue. The law seemed pretty clear and someone more concerned about the law and not the result could have done a lot better. Quoting Goldstein about a decision against liberals is like quoting Troy Aikman in the booth after a Cowboys loss. He’s not disinterested. Because all nine justices, even the dissenters, had problems with her performance, I would say she screwed the pooch on this one.
“McGehee – namecalling may have worked in junior high as a debate technique, but it’s been a while since I’ve been in junior high.”
Zat right stinky? So why aren’t you just ignoring him?
(Calling you Chris the stinky Gerbil would have been too easy, so I won’t do it,)
Look, I can pull quotes out of context too: In the end, it seems to me that the Supreme Court’s decision in Ricci is an outright rejection of the lower courts’ analysis of the case, including by Judge Sotomayor.
Gerrib’s link is about whether or not the court completely disagreed with the Second Court. In that, they were mixed because the Civil Right’s Act provides provisions that seem at odds with the 14th Amendment (see Scalia’s opinion).
Rand’s link points to Ginsburg opinion that, eventhough she would side with New Haven, Sotomayor’s summary judgement was not appropriate for deciding the case.
Chris, when you disavow knowledge of anything else at all anyone could take issue with regarding Sotomayor’s nomination, you confess to having fallen off that turnip truck.