Politico ignores Roberts, Alito record in claiming Ricci "could tarnish Sotomayor"
SUMMARY: A Politico article about the Supreme Court's decision in Ricci v. DeStefano promoted the myth that a Supreme Court reversal is unusual. However, the court has reversed more than 60 percent of the federal appeals court cases it considered each year since 2004.
A June 30 Politico article about the Supreme Court's decision in Ricci v. DeStefano -- which reversed by a 5-4 margin a decision joined by Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor -- promoted the myth that a Supreme Court reversal is somehow unusual. The article bore the headline, "Ruling could tarnish Sotomayor." The article itself, by staff writer Josh Gerstein, asserted that the Supreme Court's action "seemed to deal a blow to President Barack Obama's pending nominee for the high court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor." At no point in the article did Gerstein note that the Supreme Court reversed Justice Samuel Alito on at least four occasions when he was an appellate court judge and that the court also reversed a decision Chief Justice John Roberts joined as an appellate court judge. Gerstein also did not note that it is not unusual for the Supreme Court to reverse federal appellate court decisions.
In his book, The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court (Doubleday, 2007), New Yorker staff writer and CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin wrote that, in 1992, O'Connor had "excoriated" the "logic, approach, and conclusions" of her eventual successor, Alito, in her opinion for the abortion-rights case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Moreover, Alito identified four more reversals -- in each of which O'Connor voted with the majority reversing Alito -- in his Supreme Court nomination questionnaire:
- Rompilla v. Horn, 355 F.3d 233 (3d Cir. 2004), cert. granted 542 U.S. 966, and rev'd 125 S.Ct. 2456 (2005)
- Thomas v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 294 F.3d 568 (3d Cir. 2002), cert. granted 537 U.S. 1187, and rev'd 540 U.S. 20 (2003)
- Coss v. Lackawanna County D.A., 204 F.3d 453 (3d Cir. 2000) (en banc), cert. granted 531 U.S. 923 (2000), and rev'd 532 U.S. 394 (2001)
- Fiore v. White, 149 F.3d 221 (3d Cir. 1998), cert. granted 526 U.S. 1038, question certified 528 U.S. 23 (1999), certified question answered 562 Pa. 634 (2000), and rev'd 531 U.S. 225 (2001)
Alito was reversed unanimously in Thomas.
Additionally, as an appeals court judge, Roberts was a member of a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which, in its July 2005 unanimous ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, allowed a military commission to try Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Guantánamo Bay detainee.
Roberts was confirmed as chief justice several months later, in September 2005. Then, in 2006, the Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's decision on a 5-3 ruling.
Moreover, data compiled by SCOTUSblog since 2004 show that the Supreme Court has reversed more than 67 percent of the federal appeals court cases it considered each year, except 2007, when it reversed federal appeals court cases 61 percent of the time. During the term that concluded June 29, the Supreme Court reversed outright 74.7 percent of the federal appellate cases it considered.
From the June 30 Politico article:
In awarding a victory Monday to a group of white firefighters in New Haven who argued that they were denied promotions on account of their race, the U.S. Supreme Court also seemed to deal a blow to President Barack Obama's pending nominee for the high court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who earlier had ruled against the firefighters.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a court split 5-4 along ideological lines, reversed an appeals court ruling Sotomayor joined last year that rejected a claim that the City of New Haven discriminated against white firefighters by throwing out a promotional exam after all the African-American firefighters who took it scored too poorly to be promoted.
"Whatever the city's ultimate aim -- however well intentioned or benevolent it might have seemed -- the city made its employment decision because of race. The city rejected the test results solely because the higher-scoring candidates were white," Kennedy wrote on behalf of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.















If I derrive a forluma to determine who the best hitter is in the history of major league baseball (a populat hobby among b-ball stat-hounds like me) and my formula concludes that Candy Maldonado is in fact the greatest hitter of all-time, it might be reasonable to conclude that the formula is crap. Otherwise I have to accept that Candy Maldonado IS the greatest hitter of all time. (And he's not.) So rather than starting to cast his bronze plaque, I instead go and modify my formula. (Or find some other, independant justification for the result.)
So given a test that says 100% of one group is golden, and 100% of another group is... well, NOT, either something is wrong with the test, or something is wrong with the other group. Now that MAY be the case - this black firefighter MIGHT just all be incompetant - but you can't determine that using only the results of the very test in question as a basis for that conclusion! (That would be as ridiculous as concluding that Candy Maldonado was the greatest hitter of all-time just because my formula said so!)
But the fact is, both the City AND the White (and 1 Latino!) Firefighters had legitimate cases. Both had valid concerns, and neither was 'just being racist.' This is exactly why we have courts, as well as appellant courts and the supreme court. To settle these kinds of complex disputes, where BOTH parties have valid, competeing concerns. And with a case like this one a 5-4 decision was not all that surprising. The only question was ever (and is ever) "How with Just. Kennedy rule?" So the result, either way it went, was hardly shocking. You've never see a 5-4 decision go any other way in the Roberts Court.
This remains nothing more than the press trying to gin up a story where there is none, due to them trying to gin controversy about Sotomayor where there is none.
This is the context the issue should be discussed in. Our media knows race baiting gets better ratings though. I can still see Candy Maldonado on an 1989 Topps card in his Giants jersey. #22? I was 10 years old at the time.
I hate making that analogy (because I've used it before) and the first thing people say is "Who the hell is Candy Maldonado?" Which is exactly the point - if you've never heard of him, what are the chances he's better than Ruth, Williams, DiMaggio, Mantle, Cobb, Hornsby, Musial, etc...? The point always seems to be lost on them that if they (a total non-BBall fan) KNEW EXACTLY who I was talking about, then they might just be a legimate candidate for "best ever." But you have to pick a name that is known, but barely, for that analogy to work!
LOL. Hopefully you don't think I'm racist for saying that the seven WHITE ballplayers above are among the best ever while at the same time clearly dismissing the credentials of the darker-skinned Maldonado. ;)
Just a little clarity on the test results. There were indeed blacks and hispanics that passed the exams...just as their were whites who failed the exam.
For the Captain's exam...36% of whites failed...38% of blacks passed and 38% of hispanics passed.
For the Lt.'s exam...42% of whites failed...32% of blacks passed and 20% of hispanics passed.
It was not a shutout...but based on the number of positions open the blacks and hispanics failed to score high enough to be considered for those open positions that were available at the time.
What is the percentage of appeals that the Court hears? What does that ratio tell you?
A new thought: This was an obvious set-up. From jump street the right wing nutz fully expected the Court to reverse the New Haven case. With the current profiles of Justices, this is no surprise. So, from the start this was spun as a "startling rebuke" to Judge Sotomayor.
And most of the media fell for it...
Missed in all of this BS is the fact that Judge Sotomayor has mad many rulings that were apparently so solid the the Supremes never even took up the cases,
The media likes to say that SCOTUS reversed 6 of 7 rulings, but they don't give us all the numbers, do they? I don't have the numbers, myself, but if we assume that Judge Sotomayor made just ten rulings per year in 17 years on the bench, that would mean that she was reversed in just 6 out of 170 rulings - a very solid record, if you ask me.
Still... it seems that the conservtives are better at framing the press's sensationalism towards their own POV. I mean... Can you imagine how different the world might be if the press made this much of an effort to sell the public on Gay Marriage, Global Warming or Stem-Cell Reseach?
Christ, we'd all be gay, cancer-free and freezing!
I am not saying she is a bad judge. On the contrary, I think she is a very highly qualified judge - as was Alito. However, Alito is much more on the right than Sotomayor is on the left. The attacks coming from the right, to me, just show Obama that on his next choice he can probably go as far left as he wants - the nuts on the right are going to attack the choice endlessly anyways.
I'm not saying in this particular place that anyone was unqualified or incapable, I'm responding to MeFirst.
I don't know the answers to these questions, and I think there will be more court rulings over the years to sound out where the line will be drawn. I'm just wondering what your definition is or where you think the cut off should be.
Spoken like a true racist.
It is the same level of naivete that leads you to believe the strawman arguments put up daily by Rush and co. If you really want to get past the court case (in which Sotomayor ruled on precedent and the majority of the Supreme Court made new law) and get into the reasons behind the court case the question is simple. Why is it that in so many of our cities still today there are no blacks or minorities in positions of leadership?
Are we to believe that minorites are inherently inferior when it comes to firefighting (as well as other trades)? Or is possible that the generation after generation of Irish (my family included), Polish, etc. descendants have kept handing these jobs down to sons and grandsons and nephews, etc. Those of us that have some experience with this understand which is true. Those of us who believe that the universe is always fair and live in a utopian society that exist only in our heads do not.
The problem with the studies over the last 40 years are what constitutes Affirmative Action? The definition is pretty broad over many employer practices and tends to skew the data. For every report that claims AA as being effective there is one that shows the contrary.
I tend to believe that it has probably helped women and minorities get a foot in the door but that is in conjunction with anti-discrimination laws.
What do you think would be the cut off?
Reparations are impossible and not sensible, in monetary terms.
To me, "we're all equal" means that we have equal legal protection under the law and we are not denied opportunity that others are allowed through public access. I don't think "equal" means "everybody gets to have what everybody else has, or nobody gets to have it."
I think the best (or least worst) thing to do is to require financial qualifications to produce children you get to keep, improve schools and after-school programs in impoverished areas, and provide something like "community centers" that will pass out birth control, advise on medical issues (perhaps provide free preventative care?), and counsel on good financial decisions.
I agree that the child of an upper middle class worker is more likely to go to college than the child of a worker making minimum wage...but I would also argue that the child of the minimum wage worker is less likely to be successful at college (to the point of wasting funds), especially what's holding him/her back are test scores and academic achievement.
I'm not saying "Well all people born on the tough side of the tracks are SOL if they're older than 12!", but it will take generations to fix the problem, instead of just changing the outcome to something we think we like.
If underserved children aren't trained, taught, or raised as well, do you think they're going to as well as adults?? LOL at YOUR arrogance!
1. Dex's argument:
Tommy, at age 18, has plenty of food, nuturing parents, and access to tutors and extracurricular activities.
Joey, same age, has spotty provision of food, his dad is a drunk and him mom just doesn't care. Therefore, he doesn't have the same access to tutors, extracurricular activities, or the support at home that a good student usually requires.
Joey gets worse grades than Tommy, and everyone agrees a large part of that has to do with his upbringing and access to essentials and basic mentoring.
Dex: Because college and work are competitive and require time management skills, learning, and appropriate socialization, Tommy will do better in college and at work than Joey would, if they were both given the same opportunity.
Congo: Dex is arrogant. Just because Joey doesn't have the tools, resources, or training that Joey does, there is no reason to believe he won't do just as well in an academically-challenging environment, or a demanding, multi-skill-requiring job.
You're wrong. and I'm not arrogant, I'm realistic. That's why I support fixing "has spotty provision of food, his dad is a drunk and him mom just doesn't care. Therefore, he doesn't have the same access to tutors, extracurricular activities, or the support at home that a good student usually requires" instead of Congo's "it wasn't fair that Tommys' parents did better than Joeys, so it isn't fair to assume that Joey won't do as well, considering his much worse upbringing."
I certainly think that a business, in the interest of diversity, is justified in hiring a black man over a white man (assuming they are equally qualified) in order to further diversify their employees and their potential customer base. I think it's almost never a good thing to put a less-capable person in a role that a more-capable person is wiling and able to fill (regardless of whose fault it is that there's a difference in capability).
No one was talking about whether or not she was unfit.
The good news all this is that the decision itself is narrow. It does not throw out Title VII and the concept of affirmative action; it accepts that race based discrimination still exists.
As for the impact on Judge Sotomayor's nomination, I think she's still a lock on the job, and that's okay with me. Very okay.
As far as Sotomayor, I think the progressives on the left will probably be pretty disappointed with her. I think if you read some of her decisions you will quickly see that she is VERY moderate. She does not take very many ideological stands and she rarely, if ever, makes new law from the bench. She seems to honor precedent the most. Something the Supreme Court majority did not do here.
She will not be as far to the left as even Souter was. The real reason that the right-wing is attacking her so pathetically is because, well....they're frickin' insane once again. They can no longer be taken seriously in any adult discussion.
And you have no clue what you are talking about. Your entire post is stitched together bumper stickers.