The Supreme Court has issued its long-awaited ruling on the "reverse discrimination" case, in which Judge Sotomayor voted in the Appeals Court ruling to uphold the dismissing of a promotions test because it seemed unfair to minorities.
The conservative Washington Times had tried to spin the decision even before it was handed down, saying: "It would be an extraordinary rebuke were a current nominee to be overruled on such a controversial case by the very justices she is slated to join."
That is a pathetic effort to smear Judge Sotomayor. The Supreme Court's decision was 5-4, meaning that four of the sitting justices agree with her, while five disagree. That's an extraordinary rebuke??? I don't think so.
Further, the Supreme Court routinely overturns about 2/3 of the decisions from appeals courts; and both recently appointed justices, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, were reversed, during or after the nomination process, on decisions they had participated in as Appeals Court judges -- and by bigger margins than this.
So, Repubs, stop scraping the bottom of the barrel for dirt to throw. There just isn't much there. Be honest and say that you don't like her or her judicial thinking; trying to say she is not a good judge just isn't holding up.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't know the fine points of the case, but someone is saying that Judge Sotomayor actually voted to uphold precedent in the case, and that the Supreme Court majority that reversed the decision are in fact being "activist judges" in their decision to overturn.
ReplyDeleteIf this is true, then it's another case of hypocrisy of the right: rail against "activist judges" except when they decide in your favor.
This latter point seems to be accepted consensus now. The Appeals Court decision was following precedent, and the Supreme Court decision was overturning its own precedents.
ReplyDeleteSo, if anybody got rebuked, it was the Supreme Court rebuking itself.
Or, less sensationally, perhaps it was a rational decision that times have changed enough that the balance between two established precedents concerning racial discrimination has shifted.