This morning the Supreme Court has validated what most Americans such you and I believe, and what Sonia Sotomayor does not–that racism is wrong. It has reversed the lower court ruling on Ricci v. DeStefano, a case where White and Hispanic firefighters were denied promotions earned through passing the promotional test because no Black firefighters passed the test.

You may remember that Sotomayor ruled against the firefighters who were denied promotion as an appellate court judge. Now she is likely to sit on the Supreme Court to espouse her view of the world, where lady justice’s blindfold has been torn from her face and ripped to shreds. Lucky us.

Comments

  • scott huminski

    SOTOMAYOR IGNORANT OF THE LAW

    Sotomayor flunks on getting the most basic principle of appellate law wrong – the Standard of Review.

    In Huminski v. Haverkoch, 11/5/04, 03-7036 2d. Cir., Sotomayor reveals an ignorance of the law by failing to apply the correct standard of review to an important civil rights case. She found appellate review was for reversible error when the correct standard of review for such a case (summary judgment) is De Novo.

    A simple google on, “standard of review for summary judgment de novo” supplies tens of authorities on the issue. I guess Sotomayor would rather be wrong than google on such a rudimentary issue. She also could have assigned her flock of law clerks to research the issue. Further, on a motion for rehearing specifically pointing out her error she did not act and correct it.

    Here is the link to the Sotomayor summary order from this case in which she presided over.

    http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/cb42154f-30e6-47ee-ae7c-d8e4c3acc2e5/1/doc/03-7036_so.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/cb42154f-30e6-47ee-ae7c-d8e4c3acc2e5/1/hilite/

    See also,
    http://www.judgewatch.org/web-pages/cja-members-efforts/huminski-scott.htm

    Where the order states “For the Court”, it refers to Sotomayor and the 2 other judges on the case.

    See a different case of mine, Huminski v. Corsones, No. 02-6201 (2d Cir. 10/07/2004) (“We review a district court’s grant or denial of summary judgment de novo.”)

    Empathy, not much empathy for this wrongly convicted and incarcerated citizen,
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/nyregion/10dna.html?_r=1&emc=eta1
    It appears she gave this imprisoned man the same bogus one page opinion that I got.

    — Scott Huminski
    (202) 239-1252

  • Troy La Mana

    I saw this then saw the liberal press go on the defensive saying that lower court opinions from other SCOTUS justices were overturned before they were confirmed.

    That may be the case but why would this not cause us discomfort knowing Sonia Sotomayor practices reverse discrimination?

  • Brian H

    What is more significant is the fact that the majority opinion was only a 5-4 narrow victory. The court, and constitutional law, is hanging on by the literal skin of its teeth.

    Elections have consequences. This President, and Dem majority Senate, will likely have the power to change the face of the court in the next term(s).

    Please don’t forget to mention the 5 Justices in your prayers every night. We need them to stay where they are for a while.

    • RickyD

      I agree with Brian H. UGH! :) :) :)

      This should have been an absolute 9-0 decision. It’s obvious to a first year law student the appeals court got it wrong. That it was 5-4 should be a wake up call. A win is nice, but 4 of the 9 justices are idiots.

  • Gil Rice

    Yo Sartho, if everybody born in the good ole USofA, with the exception of illegals, is considered an American, then why can we not agree to disagree on something without all the blasphemy that Sharpton and Jackson will spew if she doesn’t get it. They wind up being bigger racists than those of us that do not agree with her original ruling on the firefighters, and applaud the court for their ruling today.

    • Sartho

      Yeah, I meant my comment to be very tongue in cheek. It’s all the rhetoric about how if she doesn’t get the appointment it’s because she’s a hispanic woman – not because she shouldn’t be appointed regardless of race or gender – from folks just like Sharpton or Jackson. It’s amazing that people claim oppression because they score below the white guys on a test to become firemen, or at least that’s what the CT fire department was trying to avoid.

  • Gary Russell

    Chalk one up for the good guys.

    A rare one, these days.

  • Sartho

    But aren’t all of us who don’t want to see her appointed racists since she’s a hispanic woman?