High court overturns Sotomayor panel’s ruling in New Haven discrimination case
June 29th, 2009 at 09:33am Pat Cunningham
 
 I doubt that THIS DECISION will negatively affect the chances for Senate confirmation of  Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to a seat on the Supreme Court.
 After all, the high court’s 5-4 split in this case does not support the notion that Sotomayor’s reading of the matter was outside the judicial mainstream.
 UPDATE: Lest anyone get the idea that this reversal of Sotomayor is a knock on her qualifications for the high court, it should be noted that Justice Samuel Alito, a favorite among conservatives, was reversed by the supremes at least four times when he was an appellate judge, as we see HERE.
UPDATE: Glenn Greenwald has a few INTERESTING POINTS to make about today’s court ruling, including his observation that “11 out of the 21 federal judges to rule on Ricci [as the case has moved through the courts] ruled as Sotomayor did.  It’s perfectly reasonable to argue that she ruled erroneously, but it’s definitively unreasonable to claim that her Ricci ruling places her on some sort of judicial fringe.”
Entry Filed under: Uncategorized
23 Comments Add your own
1. Paul | June 29th, 2009 at 10:08 am
You are probably correct which is good. At least with her confirmation we will at least have some hope that we will not have to return to the concept of hiring the best qualified person for a paticular job.
2. realfoxnews | June 29th, 2009 at 10:29 am
This was a win for the white man for once. To me they should never have a race number on any job out in this world. Its the best man for the job.
3. Michael Jessen | June 29th, 2009 at 11:29 am
She is a true racist and those who support her .
4. Neftali | June 29th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
realfoxnews - This is not a win for “white man.” This is a win for everybody of all race and sex. Justice is supposed to be blind, and this ruling is in favor of that.
5. realfoxnews | June 29th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Neftali it was the white firefighters who were turn down, so I say it was a win for the white man.
6. Neftali | June 29th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
realfoxnews - Then you are shortsighted. Yes, white firefighters were the plantiffs in the case, but the outcome is much bigger. Its a decision against affirmative action.
If a bunch of Chinese firefighers were more qualified, but an African-American person got the position, the court’s ruling would be the same. (i.e. in favor of the Chinese)
Looking at it as a victory “only for white man” makes you look racist.
In reality, this is a victory for anyone who finds themselves discriminated against in this manner. Remember the Supreme Court’s ruling doesn’t only just apply to this case, its sets a precedent for future decisions.
7. Orlando Clay | June 29th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
realfoxnews wrote: “This was a win for the white man for once.”
Yep, that is, without a doubt, the sentiment of the real Fox News, as well as Applesauce’s favorite troll. I can envision Hannity, Beck, and O’Reilly exchanging high-fives in the hallways of the RNC propaganda channel. And I would imagine MSNBC’s Pat Buchanan is doing cartwheels outside Rockefeller Center as well.
Oh, BTW, Cons, before you pop the champagne, the Supreme Court decision was a 5-4 split, not the “9-zip” shutout proclaimed by the Maharushie on today’s show. How sad that he has resorted to lying to make it appear as if this is the genesis of the “great conservative comeback” and to make sure you sheep stay in the fold.
8. realfoxnews | June 29th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
were theses Chinese firefighters no they were white Firefighters. For years the white man has always been over looked because of this its about time if the shoe was on the other foot you would see Jessie Jackson, Sharpon, and no I’ m not racist. Lets see come 2010 you Dumb A@@ Orlando you know it.
9. Ross Calloway | June 29th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Pat, do you know if those 4 occasions where Alito was overturned amounted to 60% of his decisions, as is the case with Sonia Sotomayor?
There is a reason Media Matters did not offer a percentage figure.
10. Pat Cunningham | June 29th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Ross Calloway wants us to believe that 60 percent of Sotomayor’s court decisions have been reversed by the Supreme Court. Ross Calloway doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
11. Pat Cunningham | June 29th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Here’s more on Ross Calloway’s idiotic assertion that 60 percent of Sotomayor’s rulings have been reversed. The truth is that only six of the more than 200 decisions Sotomayor has written in her 11 years as a 2nd Circuit judge have even been reviewed by the high court. Her reversal rate among those cases is about average. It’s important to note that the Supremes reverse about three-fourths of all the cases they review.
Now, let’s take a look at the appellate court record of conservative Justice Samuel Alito. When he was nominated by George W. Bush for a Supreme Court seat four years ago, his record of reversal as a judge for the 3rd Circuit was — get ready for it — 100 percent!!!!
Do you have any more ridiculous points you want to make, Ross?
12. Ross Calloway | June 29th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
“Ross Calloway wants us to believe that 60 percent of Sotomayor’s court decisions have been reversed by the Supreme Court. Ross Calloway doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”
Are you speaking to me Pat, or do your gentle readers need an interpreter for my posts?
I have to agree with you here Pat, even though I didn’t mention ‘Supreme Court’ it is what I meant.
Here’s the math on Sotomayor: She wrote 380 majority opinions during her 11 years on the appeals court. Of those 380 opinions, the Supreme Court heard five of the cases and overturned her on three.
3 out of 5, yeah, that’s 60%.
It’s no wonder Obama wants her on the court.
13. Pat Cunningham | June 29th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
Ross: What about conservative Alito’s 100 percent reversal rate? What about the fact that Sotomayor’s reversal rate is about average for appellate rulings reviewed by the supremes? And what the hell does the last sentence of your comment mean? Maybe Obama just wants a justice whose reversal rate is not as bad as Alito’s.
And speaking of Alito, if his predecessor, Sandra Day O’Connor, was still in the seat Alito now holds, today’s ruling likely would have been 5-4 the other way, upholding Sotomayor.
14. Ross Calloway | June 30th, 2009 at 7:28 am
“What about conservative Alito’s 100 percent reversal rate?”
What about it? The topic here is Sotomayor. But on Alito, I haven’t seen anything about the Supremes overruling Alito in all of his cases. Can you provide a link?
“And what the hell does the last sentence of your comment mean?”
Glad you asked. The answer is found on this link:
http://rosscalloway.com/2009/05/31/its-the-supreme-court-not-oprah/
15. Richard | June 30th, 2009 at 7:41 am
It was nice to see that the White House had explanation all set to go.The new line is that the reversal of Sotomayor’s ruling proves that she follows judicial precedent. Robert Gibbs said that this should put to rest any claims that Sotomayor is an activist judge. He says, “One thing is clear, that the ruling by Judge Sotomayor was based on the precedent of the Second Circuit. … The Supreme Court clearly had a new interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.”
——————————————————————————–
16. realfoxnews | June 30th, 2009 at 8:11 am
witch Richard is this 1or 2?
17. Richard | June 30th, 2009 at 9:07 am
the one Pat does drive bys on.
18. Richard | June 30th, 2009 at 9:22 am
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D994HS400&show_article=1
This is the crazy article that I was refering to with my post. To me it is just more propaganda for those who can not think for themselves. Just shows how the media bias towards the Obama agenda.
19. Pat Cunningham | June 30th, 2009 at 9:24 am
Ross: Here’s the link you requested regarding Alito’s reversal rate:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202431168129
20. Ross Calloway | June 30th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Thanks. I don’t remember hearing about it, as the article says, in the media during his nomination process.
I did learn another more about the ones that were overruled.
It was an environmental case with Riverkeepers (Bobby Kennedy). She came down on the side of the plaintiff, Riverkeepers, and was overturned.
It came down to a cost / effectiveness decision that, if it went her way, would have ended the business.
So we know two important things about Sonia Sotomayor. Her justice is not color blind, and from the Riverkeeper case, it looks green.
For me, that’s wrong on two counts, no matter what the percentage is.
21. mike | June 30th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Why does Richard now have a blue name? Even on his original posts Pat? Hmmmmm.
22. Pat Cunningham | June 30th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Hmmmm, yourself! I don’t know, mike. What’s your theory as to why Richard now has a blue name? Probably some liberal conspiracy, right? Maybe it has something to do with Satan, a subject about which you claim to have some expertise. Whatever it is, I’m sure it’s bad.
23. Dave Barrett | June 30th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
mike,
Whenever you post a comment on this blog whatever you do make sure you NEVER type anything into the URL field below the required Name and EMail fields. If you type a valid URL in that field your name might turn blue just like Richard’s did!
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed