Comments on: Sotomayor

By: Mike In WNY

Mike In WNY — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 23:20:58 +0000

Sotomayor only followed judicial precedent if she had applied the law correctly, which she didn’t do. There was no evidence of discrimination or bias in the test, therefore, she did not apply precedent. The City of New Haven paid a private company $100,000 to develop a fair test and they went to extraordinary means to do so. After reading the Supreme Court decision, it is crystal clear that there was no discrimination.

By: shim

shim — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 19:07:28 +0000

Keep in mind…she was only a part of this decision. While having it overturned will make things a bit more uncomfortable for her during the confirmation proceedings I don’t see how this is a “killer” for her. Much to my dismay I see this as nothing more than a speed bump in the way of her getting confirmed…

By: Ward

Ward — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:03:36 +0000

“… followed judicial precedent”?
I’m not unfamiliar with the concept of judicial precedent, but I’m darned if I can find a case standing for the “rule of established law” that a municipal employer can deprive its employees of that which they have earned (or, as the Supreme Court put it–”engage in intentional discrimination for the asserted purpose of avoiding or remedying an unintentional, disparate impact”) simply on the chance that some group may sue it, or the fact that some race-pimp hurls bombast around at city council meetings.

By: David Allen

David Allen — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 03:40:06 +0000

And as long as we’re at it, what Drudge and company are saying is that Roe v. Wade should be safe, because a vote by any judge that varies from anything the SC has already ruled, or will rule in the future, is perfect proof of that judge’s incompetence.

By: The Humanist

The Humanist — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 01:59:21 +0000

Another thing the Republican blowhards are conveniently forgetting is that the 2nd Circuit (including Sotomayor) followed judical precedent and their decision was directed by the rule of established law, rather than “legislating from the bench”. It was the Supreme Court that reversed the established precedent (as is its wont) and, in fact, made new law in the area of employment discrimination, not a specific rebuke to the 2nd Circuit, let alone Judge Sotomayor.

So Judge Sotomayor demonstrates judicial restraint and follows her own court’s prior, binding ruling while the SCOTUS plainly exercises judicial activism in this decision….and she’s the wild-eyed radical?