So So Sonia Sotomayor
Ann has a knack for presenting the truth in a very entertaining way.
SO MUCH FOR WISE LATINAS
July 1, 2009
With the Supreme Court's decision in Ricci v. DeStefano this week, we can now report that Sonia Sotomayor is even crazier than Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
To recap the famous Ricci case, in 2003, the city of New Haven threw out the results of a firefighters' test -- which had been expressly designed to be race-neutral -- because only whites and Hispanics scored high enough to receive immediate promotions, whereas blacks who took the test did well enough only to be eligible for promotions down the line.
Inasmuch as the high-scoring white and Hispanic firemen were denied promotions solely because of their race, they sued the city for race discrimination.
Obama's Justice-designate Sotomayor threw out their lawsuit in a sneaky, unsigned opinion -- the judicial equivalent of "talk to the hand." She upheld the city's race discrimination against white and Hispanic firemen on the grounds that the test had a "disparate impact" on blacks, meaning that it failed to promote some magical percentage of blacks.
This strict quota regime was dressed up by the city -- and by Sotomayor's opinion -- as a reasonable reaction to the threat of lawsuits by blacks who were not promoted.
That's a complicated way of saying: Racial quotas are peachy.
According to Sotomayor, any test that gets the numbers wrong -- whatever "wrong" means in any given context of professions, populations, applicants, workers, etc. -- is grounds for a lawsuit, which in turn, is grounds for an employer to engage in race discrimination against disfavored racial groups, such as white men.
Consequently, the only legal avenue available to employers under Sotomayor's ruling is always to impose strict racial quotas in making hiring and promotion decisions.
Say, if the threat of a lawsuit permits the government to ignore the Constitution, can pro-lifers get New Haven to shut down all abortion clinics by threatening to sue them? There's no question but that abortion clinics have a "disparate impact" on black babies.
This week, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 for the white and Hispanic firefighters, overturning Sotomayor's endorsement of racial quotas.
But all nine justices rejected Sotomayor's holding that different test results alone give the government a green light to engage in race discrimination. Even Justice Ginsburg's opinion for the dissent clearly stated that "an employer could not cast aside a selection method based on a statistical disparity alone."
Indeed, the dissenters argued that the case should be returned to the lower courts to look for some hidden racial bias in the test. For Sotomayor, the results alone proved racial bias.
The one advantage Sotomayor's talk-to-the-hand opinion has over Justice Ginsburg's prolix dissent is that brevity prevented Sotomayor from having to explain why quotas aren't quotas.
That was left to Ginsburg.
Liberals desperately want race quotas -- as long as quotas never come to their offices.
But they can't say that, so instead they talk in circles for 10 hours straight, until everyone else is exhausted, and then, when no one is paying attention, they announce: So we're all agreed -- we will have racial quotas.
Based on her lifetime of experience working as a firefighter, Ginsburg said: "Relying heavily on written tests to select fire officers is a questionable practice, to say the least." Liberals prefer a more objective test, such as race.
Isn't excelling on written tests how Ruth Bader Ginsburg got where she is? It's curious how people whose entire careers are based on doing well on tests find them so irrelevant to other people's jobs.
In the middle of a fire, it can either be a great idea or the worst possible idea to open a door. An excellent method for finding out if your next fire chief knows the correct answer is a written test.
Unleashing the canard of all race-obsessed liberals, Ginsburg observed that courts have found that a fire officer's job "involves complex behaviors, good interpersonal skills, the ability to make decisions under tremendous pressure, and a host of other abilities -- none of which is easily measured by a written, multiple choice test."
So does a lawyer's job. And yet attorneys with absolutely no "interpersonal skills" get cushy jobs and extravagant salaries on the basis of their commendable performance on all manner of written tests, from multiple choice LSATs and bar exams to written law school exams.
I note that Ginsburg has not shown any particular interest in rectifying the "disparate impact" of legal exams: She never hired a single black law clerk out of the dozens she employed in more than a decade as an appeals court judge. (Her hiring practices on the Supreme Court are a state secret, but I can state with supreme certainty that her clerks do not reflect the racial mix of Washington, D.C.)
But liberals think other people's jobs are a joke, so the testing must also be a joke. That is -- other than their preferred test: "Is the applicant black, female or otherwise handicapped?"
There is no test that can prove all things about an employee and so there is no test that can't be derided by the race-mongers. Which is exactly the point. Get rid of all tests -- except for lawyers who graduated at the top of their law school classes at Columbia, like Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Then liberals are free to impose racial quotas on other people's jobs without limit.
As crazy as this is, even Ginsburg and the other dissenters made a big point of pretending there was some flaw in this particular test. None adopted Sotomayor's position that unequal test results alone prove discrimination.
This suggests that a wise Jewess, due to the richness of her life experiences, might come to a better judgment than a Latina judge would.
COPYRIGHT 2009 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
- jheaton's blog
- Login or register to post comments
I really have no qualm with
I really have no qualm with the decision, and I think Sotomayor's comments about a wise latina being able to make better decisions are way out of line. However, from what I've heard, I think it's incorrect to single out her for criticism due to the Applelate court's ruling, in which she participated. There was little precedence in this area and most legal experts feel the court made the correct decision, given that an appellate court's main purpose is to ensure precedent handed down by the Supreme Court has been followed correctly.
Yes, So So Sonia Sotomayor JHeaton
Ricci-ing for the absurd
Several weeks ago, conservatives took a first run at undermining the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor. But their everything-and-the-kitchen-sink attack plan -- charging that she is an unqualified, Marxist, radical activist and a reverse racist/normal racist who is also, interestingly, far too empathetic to be on the Supreme Court -- fell flat under the weight of serious examination.
This week, however, offered another opportunity for media conservatives to revisit their central criticism: that Sotomayor's "wise Latina woman" comment was a window into the prejudicial soul of the judge who ruled against hard-working white firefighters (and a Hispanic firefighter) simply because they weren't black.
First, the facts. On Tuesday, ABC's Bob Woodruff misstated the crux of the case, reporting that Ricci v. DeStefano involved firefighters "passed over for promotion in favor of less qualified black candidates." In fact, no one was promoted over anyone else. Rather, the results of a test to determine which members of the New Haven Fire Department could receive promotions were thrown out because city officials were unhappy with a racial disparity in the results and stated they feared being sued for racial discrimination. In the decision that Sotomayor joined denying en banc rehearing of the appeal of the district court's decision, Judge Barrington Parker -- a George W. Bush appointee -- wrote that "the City acted out of a concern that certifying the exam results would have an adverse impact on minority candidates" -- a view that fit cleanly within previous Supreme Court precedent. That decision was overturned by the 5-4 vote of the Supreme Court on Monday.
Instead of looking at the legal merits of the case, conservatives have drawn the conclusion that Sotomayor was actively seeking to promote African-American firefighters at the expense of everyone else. The Washington Times opined that the case showed how, "[i]n Judge Sotomayor's America, people are judged by the color of their skin, not the content of their character." Investor's Business Daily chimed in as well: "The Supreme Court's overturning of high-court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's ruling in the New Haven firefighter case exposes what lies at the core of her misguided philosophy: stark racial favoritism."
Of course, Limbaugh, who has accused Sotomayor of racism on numerous occasions since her nomination was announced, was the most vocal: "Sonia Sotomayor was following her basic instinct: She is racist."
Most judges nominated by Democrats are accused by the right of being radicals, and Sotomayor is no different -- numerous efforts were made this week to portray the court's reversal of Ricci as proof of Sotomayor's inherent radicalism. But the fact of the matter is, four Supreme Court justices, including Justice David Souter, whom Sotomayor was nominated to replace, agreed with her -- a fact that conservatives have done their best to cover up.
A number of media conservatives subsequently claimed that the court had unanimously rejected Sotomayor's reasoning. Ed Whelan (who can't use The Google) and Kathryn Lopez of National Review Online started the trend ("9-0 Against Sotomayor"), followed quickly by Fox News' Laura Ingraham and Rush. Ingraham's Fox News colleague Sean Hannity wasn't far behind. In fact, while Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in her dissent that "[o]rdinarily, a remand for fresh consideration would be in order" and that "I would not oppose a remand for further proceedings fair to both sides," she concluded, consistent with the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision, which Sotomayor joined: "[W]hat this case does not present is race-based discrimination in violation of Title VII."
Furthermore, an article in Politico promoted the myth that a Supreme Court reversal is unusual, even though the court has reversed more than 60 percent of the federal appeals court cases it considered each year since 2004. In doing so, Politico was following The Washington Times, which had already argued that such an outcome would be an "extraordinary rebuke" of Sotomayor. It should come as no surprise, then, that Fox's Alexis Glick impartially described the ruling as "a major slap" to Sotomayor. And for MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, the whole episode showed that it isn't just Sotomayor who is out of touch: nearly half of the Supreme Court is, too.
When the AP and The New York Times failed to note false statements by Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, they revealed just how far-reaching the problematic reporting on Sotomayor has become. It's clear that plenty of work needs to be done to ensure that she will have a fair hearing when she finally comes before the Senate. At least Jonathan Capehart is bringing some rationality to the discussion.
BR
Nice plagiarism job.
unclesamsboot.blogspot.com
Hows This JHeaton
source: mediamattersforamerica.org
Any rebuttal regarding you're content now?
And how's this comrade Chump?
American Bar Association gives Sotomayor top rating
1 hr 38 mins ago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The American Bar Association on Tuesday gave U.S. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor its top rating, boosting her anticipated confirmation as the first Hispanic justice on the highest U.S. court.
The ABA said its Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary based its unanimous "well qualified" evaluation on a review of Sotomayor's professional integrity, competence and judicial temperament.
The ABA evaluation is certain to mentioned repeatedly by Sotomayor's backers at her confirmation hearing next week before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
A federal judge the past 17 years, Sotomayor is expected to win confirmation by the full Democratic-led Senate, perhaps overwhelmingly, to replace David Souter, who announced in May his retirement as a Supreme Court justice.
If confirmed, Sotomayor, 54, would likely not change the balance on the often divided nine-member court. Like Souter, she is seen as a liberal.
The ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary rates the qualification of all federal court nominees.
"When the Judiciary Committee hearings to consider this nomination begin next week, Americans will hear from Judge Sotomayor herself, and I have the utmost confidence they will agree with the American Bar Association's review of her qualifications," said Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy, a Democrat.
(Reporting by Thomas Ferraro, editing by Jackie Frank)
Attn: Comrade Chump/Chimp
Here's some more. Any rebuttal?
Sotomayor faces friendly jury as hearings begin
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer Mark Sherman, Associated Press Writer
54 mins ago
WASHINGTON – Sonia Sotomayor has decided advantages as she begins the most important trial of her long legal career, a nationally televised consideration of her nomination to be the first Hispanic and just the third woman on the Supreme Court.
She will tell her compelling up-from-poverty personal story to a jury tilted strongly in her favor — Democrats hold a comfortable majority on the Senate Judiciary Committee and a filibuster-resistant 60 votes in the Senate.
Still, Republicans signaled that they will press the 55-year-old New Yorker and veteran federal judge to explain past rulings involving discrimination complaints and gun rights, as well as comments that they say raise doubts about Sotomayor's ability to judge cases fairly.
The sharpest comments about her so far came Sunday from Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the senior Republican on the committee.
Sotomayor has said repeatedly in speeches over the past 10 years that personal experiences influence a judge's decisions, Sessions said.
"She has criticized the idea that a woman and a man would reach the same result. She expects them to reach different results. I think that's philosophically incompatible with the American system," Sessions said on CBS' "Face the Nation."
Her defenders have tried to paint a picture of Sotomayor as a meticulous judge, one who "goes out of her way, as a good jurist should, to follow the law, no matter what her sympathies tell her," Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., told The Associated Press last week.
Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the committee chairman, said Sunday on CBS that Sotomayor's 17-year record on the federal bench shows her to be a "mainstream judge."
The questioning of Sotomayor won't even begin until Tuesday, after the 12 Democrats and seven Republicans on the committee use up to 10 minutes each for preliminary remarks and the nominee makes her opening statement.
President Barack Obama chose Sotomayor in late May to take the place of Justice David Souter, who retired last month. The switch would not appreciably alter the balance of the power on the conservative-leaning court.
Obama called Sotomayor on Sunday to wish her luck at the hearings, compliment her for making courtesy calls to 89 senators and express his confidence that she would win Senate approval, the White House said.
In choosing Sotomayor, Obama also has put pressure on Republicans who might be forced to temper their opposition because of their need to increase their appeal to Hispanic voters, the fastest-growing segment of the electorate. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, highlighted the potential political pitfalls for Republicans when he noted on "Fox News Sunday" that a third of his constituents are Hispanic and that they want Sotomayor judged fairly.
The most fertile ground for Republican questioning appears to be on race and ethnicity, focused on Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comment and the white firefighters from New Haven, Conn., who won their Supreme Court case last month.
In a speech in 2001, Sotomayor said she hoped a "wise Latina" often would reach better conclusions than a white male without the same life experience.
By a 5-4 vote last month, the justices agreed with the firefighters, who claimed they were denied promotion on account of their race after New Haven officials threw out test results because too few minorities did well. The court reversed a decision by Sotomayor and two other federal appeals court judges.
Republicans might use the wise Latina comment and the New Haven case "to imply that Sotomayor is a prisoner of identity politics," said David Garrow, a Cambridge University historian who follows the court.
"A lot of it is going to really depend not on particular answers but on how she comes across as a personality," Garrow said.
On that score, Schumer predicted that when the public gets its first long look at Sotomayor, "they're going to be wowed."
The subtext of the hearings has less to do with Sotomayor than with eventual other high court vacancies Obama might get to fill.
"A lot of it is about the future of the Supreme Court and future nominees," said Doug Kendall, president of the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center.
The GOP wants to "try to effectively state their vision for the Supreme Court and their concern with where President Obama's nominees could take the court," Kendall said.
Brian Fitzpatrick, a Vanderbilt University law professor who worked for Cornyn during the two most recent Supreme Court confirmation hearings, said, "Even if you can't defeat the nomination, perhaps you will get public opinion a little more behind the Republican party."
Gun rights activists and abortion opponents critical of Sotomayor also want senators to question her aggressively. They are joined by abortion-rights groups, also wary about Sotomayor's largely unknown views on abortion. "Failure to pursue such questions creates dangerous uncertainty regarding a constitutional right that has already been significantly weakened," said the Center for Reproductive Rights.