Today Obama announced his pick to replace Justice Souter on the Supreme Court: Sonia Sotomayor. Conservatives are already calling her a "judicial activist."
Conservatives argue Sotomayor has a "hard-left record" and believes that judges should consider experiences of women and minorities in their decision-making.
Sounds pretty awesome to me. Although the road to confirmation is likely to be rocky, I hope Sotomayor is indeed confirmed. I was also heartened to see that all of the names on Obama's short-list were women. Yes, Sotomayor's record and experience should be first and foremost when we discuss her as a possible justice, but her identity is not insignificant. I'm looking forward to returning to an era of two women on the court -- because it's pretty damn appalling that "consider(ing) the experiences of women and minorities" is not something we expect of all members of the current Court.
For more on Sotomayor's legal opinions, SCOTUSblog has a detailed rundown in four parts: I, II, III, IV.
(Again, we're at our retreat right now, so sorry for the brevity. More on Sotomayor and her record to come...)
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Obama nominates Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13904
I am sooooo beyond thrilled. I think she is a great choice and I have every confidence she will be confirmed. And being a fellow puertorriqueña from the BX I am bursting :)
I saw this on the news and my jaw dropped. I'm so excited for this pick and I pray for the best that she'll be confirmed.
I still think Rick Warren's inauguration convocation was a really defining and consequential moment in Obama's presidency.
And barring a scandal that would actually deserve to sink a nominee, in this climate her confirmation is blessedly assured.
Blessedly assured?
You're joking, right?
A qualified Hispanic woman with 59 Democratic Senators (60 if we have to wait for Franken), nominated by a popular president? Two of the Republican Senators, of course, being Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins? No, I'm not joking. If we lose this fight we'll deserve to and then some.
Aye, you're probably right. I'm just increasingly cynical about the Democratic caucus' power in the Senate.
In this case, I'm sure the timiD mice will beat the Rabid weasels. Don't ask me about a good healthcare reform bill.
Can't say I was surprised, but I am thrilled. She'll get confirmed, even over the shrills of right-wingers. At least this way it'll expose their anti-woman, racist agenda.
Woo hoo! This totally made my day. Now, let the smear campaign from the right begin!
Here's how the process is gonna go:
Sotomayor gets questioned about her New Haven decision, stands by it, some people get mad.
Sotomayor gets questioned about abortion, doesn't answer, just like other nominees.
Sotomayor gets asked about "compassion from the bench". Describes it as personal feeling, not legal interpretation.
Sotomayor gets confirmed by a margin of 60 or more in the Senate.
We won't see a true smear campaign, but we will see criticism of her past judicial decisions, and the New Haven case in particular because it's so controversial.
That said, she's moderate enough that I doubt she faces any serious chance of not being confirmed, barring any skeletons in the closet. Obama has had issues with bad vetting before in the cases of guys like Geithner and Daschle, but I don't think it'll come up here.
On a side note, the Supreme Court will likely decide Ricci v. DeStefano (the New Haven case) while Sotomayor is being confirmed. At this point it seems almost certain that they will overturn her decision, which will be something both senators and the media will latch onto.
It's a really heated case, and the fact that the court she's trying to get onto is probably going to reverse her opinion has to be discussed. If there's one threat to her confirmation it's Sotomayor saying something really dumb about the New Haven case. If she simply uses legal terms she ought to be fine, but if she gets into more colloquial speech about her decision it's going to hurt her significantly, perhaps enough to force her to bow out.
I expect her to be confirmed, but this is the one real issue on her path to confirmation, and it's gonna be heated.
"At this point it seems almost certain that they will overturn her decision"
You really think so? I thought it was certain that they would affirm.
Nope, observers say it looks like it's going to be reversed. It seems very likely that Sotomayor's decision is going to be reversed in this instance.
I totally called it!
I hate how people equate minority/gender status with judicial activism. People can't accept that laws can be sexist....or people just can't see the reason why we need more than just a token "minority."
I'm really excited his nominee is a Women and Latina. However, I do find it disturbing that the President's entire shortlist had only women on it - that still reeks of tokenism. Think about the uproar from the feminist community if the entire short list hd been male? I'd like to know the Sonya is the best candidate of all considered, not just of 50% of the population..
I agree and I don't. With Bush only appointing white men, he tied the hands of any subsequent president seeking to try to diversify the court (which, let's face it, needs to be done--White Men constitute less than a third of the total population but 7/9ths of the Supreme Court?). What bothers me, instead, is the dangerous precedent that liberal presidents will be forced to only appoint women and people of color, while conservative presidents will only appoint white men.
Suddenly, identity politics will have taken over and white male judges will be universally seen as conservative, while minorities and women will be liberals, encouraging people to take "sides" based on their identities, and limiting career advancement of top legal talent based on their party and background.
Actually, men are about half the population, but are currently 8/9ths of the Supreme Court.
After Sotomayor is confirmed, there will be a whopping two women on the SC. Which is still rather pathetic. Obama should keep nominating women until there are four or five on the SC.
This is not "tokenism", because the women would not be chosen just because they were female or because there is some quota to be filled. They would be just as qualified, and in some case more so, than the men Obama could appoint to the court. Imagine the other women on Obama's shortlist going to the Supreme Court: Diane Wood, Elena Kagan, Janet Napolitano. There is nothing "token" about any of those women.
Oops, my bad, you were talking about "white men". In which case you are correct.
Ok, I'm not sure the point of your comment. I'm for diversifying the court as a stated public goal and I never once suggested this issue is tokenism. In fact, I prefer my president's short list to be the real list of candidates he is considering, not a make-nice list for public consumption full of token non-candidates. I'm glad that since he wasn't considering men, he didn't include them on his short list.
But I find this argument of yours to be flawed:
"Obama should keep nominating women until there are four or five on the SC. This is not 'tokenism', because the women would not be chosen just because they were female or because there is some quota to be filled."
Not considering men until the court is at least 44% women is a quota is a quota is a quota. That alone doesn't make it a bad policy, but be aware that your stipulation IS a quota. (Not to mention the fact that it is extremely unlikely that Obama will get to appoint 3 or 4 more judges. 1, perhaps 2 at the most is plausible.)
With Bush only appointing white men...
Given the fact of Clarence Thomas, I'm assuming you mean George W. Bush here -- and he did NOT nominate only white men. Forgetting Harriet Miers?
No, I'm not. Harriet Miers was NOT appointed. She was only nominated, a nomination that was quickly withdrawn. Forgive me for seeing actual appointment as more important than nomination.
Moreover, I don't believe she was ever a serious candidate for the Supreme Court. Between her marginal qualifications and history as George W. Bush's personal attorney, very few people expected her to be confirmed. Instead, it seems she was a political football used to mollify critics over the appointment of two white men to an already overwhelmingly white male court.
For me, it was Miers's nomination, not Sotomayor's, that was defined by tokenism.
Wasnt Harriet Miers just a right wing puppet? I hardly think she'd do anything for women. Like a Palin or a Schlafly.
"I do find it disturbing that the President's entire shortlist had only women on it-" Why? It doesn't take a genius to see that women are terribly underrepresented in the high court.
"that reeks of tokenism" No. Tokenism would be if he picked on minority and one woman out of a plethora of white men. Please try again later.
"Think about the uproar from the feminist community if the entire short list [had] been male?" Well that would be something wouldn't considering he'd be following a 200 year old trend.
"I'd like to know the Sonya is the best candidate of all considered, not just of 50% of the population.." I don't know what you're getting at, but it sure sounds like a "what about teh menz" argument to me. I'm sure her Honor won't infiltrate the justice system in an attempt to "oppress" white males.
I really don't think becca's comment was motivated by 'what about the menz' concern, and it bothers me to see it dismissed as so troll-like. There is an important discussion to be had about how ensure the diversification of the court without limiting the advancement/contributions of specific demographics (conservative women/POC, liberal white men, for example).
Frankly, I'm glad that his short list wasn't composed of show candidates and token males if he wasn't seriously considering appointing a man. I'm glad our president is taking action for diversifying the court, and my anger is directed at the Bush administration for so clearly not caring.
I did look at it rather harshly in my criticism. In my defense, the sentence was poorly constructed and fairly ambiguous. It can easily be inferred as a "what about teh menz" argument. However, since the OC isn't here to qualify her statement, I'll hold out on further discussion.
It isn't "what about the menz". I am pleased and happy that he appointed a woman - I think that 200 years of not appointing women has made the court worse of for it. However, I find it disturbing that to be qualified for the short list, the first requirement was to be a woman. That's no different than saying that only men have been considered in the past. Is this going to be the bane of all liberal presidents -- to appoint as many women and minorities to positions of power? I want women and minorities to be CONSIDERED for position and power, to have their achievements and unique perspective weighed, for it to be a fair competition for them, for their race and gender to not be considered a disadvantage. I think the short list should have included a diversity of candidates, and realizing they are all mostly equally qualified, and then selecting the one that might have a unique qualification of bringing a minority and/or female perspective to the bench. But to completely disqualify candidates for being male? That's no better than conservative presidents considering only white male candidates... look at all the people on this blog who supported Obama over Hillary Clinton, as another example.. Sotomayer seems uniquely well qaulified for the Bench and the appointment. Why not put other qualified people (even if they happen to be men) on the short list, and show the public she is the best of all of them, not just the ones that made the gender cut.
I see what you're saying. I'm sorry I accused you. Thank you for clarifying and once again I apologize.
you have just ***wonderfully*** stated my position on.....so many things, far better than i am apparently able to. thank you so much.
Um, I don't think the fact that Barack Obama's short list only contained women means that he is somehow disqualifying men. It probably means that his top picks for the job were female. Which they were. I don't understand how disqualifying men somehow follows from the fact that his short list was all women.
Sotomayor graduated summa cum laude from Princeton, was editor of the Yale Law Review, and has more judicial experience than any Supreme Court judge in decades. Brilliant seems like a fair characterization.
I think its unfair to say that "woman" was the first criterion BO looked for--after all there are thousands of senior female attorneys--but, judging from the short list, "brilliant", could well have been the first. Certainly female appears to have been a criterion, and justifiably so.
Also, there's no "best qualified" at this level. Its all subjective. You'd have an easier time picking a winning horse or football team than picking "best qualified" among a small, elite group of people who all went to the same schools, graduated at the top of their classes, and took the same high powered jobs out of college. Bush reported picked Roberts over Scalia as chief justice because of Roberts' age, does that make Roberts more qualified to be Chief Justice than an already sitting, eminently quoted supreme court justice??? Or, was Earl Warren, a governor with absolutely zero judicial experience, the best qualified candidate for Chief Justice when Eisenhower selected him???
Look, this is the real world, and as much as we would love to be gender-blind and color-blind, such an attitude isn't very efficient when you are trying to add diversity to the Supreme Court. Obama might only get to make 2 or 3 nominations in his presidency, and they would serve for 35 years. So if we are going to get around to creating some gender balance on the Supreme Court (which we should all agree is a good thing, right?) then at some point a president has to say "you know what, there are already plenty of dudes on the court, let's get some equally qualified women in here as well".
Obama considered male nominees, they just didn't make it to his top four list. The perspective of half of the human race is under-represented on the current court, and appointing another man just wouldn't cut it. Yes, it sounds discriminatory to exclude men from consideration based on their gender, but when we are talking about a sexist institution like the Supreme Court where only two women have ever served in 230 years, then guess what? It is justified and the right thing to do.
I'm a man, I'm not offended, and I would have been pretty disappointed if Obama had selected a man. In fact, I don't think any men should be considered until there are 4 or 5 women on the court, barring some truly exemplary male candidates of the Thurgood Marshall variety.
"Yes, it sounds discriminatory to exclude men from consideration based on their gender, but when we are talking about a sexist institution like the Supreme Court where only two women have ever served in 230 years, then guess what? It is justified and the right thing to do."
Absolutely. And I believe the same goes for people of color, non-heterosexuals, and all other historically oppressed groups. For an institution that has been categorically dominated by white, able-bodied, heterosexual men, throughout its entire history, that supposedly interprets the laws of our nation in a way that represents the best interests of the population as a whole, a little push for parity should not (but will) make people tremble in their boots. It should come as a welcome trend. It always pains me when people can't grasp that it is problematic to have our laws made, interpreted, and enforced mostly by one group of people, and I believe the claim of "reverse discrimination" (which is impossible) is even more erroneous when leveled at attempts to diversify such an important body as the SCOTUS.
This reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of one of the main functions of the Supreme Court. In addition to acting as the final arbiter of interpretation of laws it also is intended to guard against the tyranny of the majority. The other branches of government look out for the popular will.
I am not a fan of standpoint politics, in feminism or racial analysis, and to say a Supreme Court must reflect the ethnic and sexual diversity of the nation is myopic.
Sotomayor seems clearly qualified, her education and experience on the bench being top of the list of qualifications IMO. There will be some squabbles about the New Haven case and some probing of the abortion issue, but she does not seem to be an outlier on either issue. Unless there is some personal life problem, she ought to be confirmed shortly after the conservatives get to air their worn-out grievances on "activist judges" and reverse discrimination.
It's hard to predict the success of a nomination. I would have been opposed to Warren's appointment because of his lack of judicial experience, but I like the legacy of his term. My only worry about her is the possibility of being too deferential to actions of reigning governmental actions, executive or legislative.
So, in whose interests is the SCOTUS interpreting the laws? Their own? And, to me, the "majority" we must be protected from is not the majority of the population, i.e. non-white, non-male, or both. The phrase "tyranny of the majority" is not ahistorical. We are currently living under the tyranny of the white male minority, and, in my eyes, this is why a non-white, non-male justice is necessary. Really, in these current United States, the SCOTUS should be moving toward PROTECTING the interests of the majority.
Also, sorry, but you cannot dismiss the influence of identity on policy decisions or court rulings simply because you are "not a fan of standpoint politics." Despite your status as a non-fan of standpoint politics in feminism and anti-racist criticism, this does not change the fact that, as many bloggers and commenters have pointed out in the wake of Sotomayor's nomination, one's race, gender, sexuality, etc. have an undeniable and unavoidable influence on one's political viewpoints, NOT because people are dupes bound to their biology or their identity, but because how we look and who we are attracted to shape how the world views US, how other people treat us, and the privileges accorded to us in this society. To deny this is myopic.
I don't deny that identity influences one's view of things, especially to the extent that identity shapes ones life experiences. I think it's a mistake to let it dominate one's analysis and approach to life.
Standpoint feminism would say that men are unable fully to understand women's issues. My answer to that is Harry Blackmun.
Standpoint racial analysis would say that white men cannot understand African Americans' experiences and plights and therefore are incapable of deciding cases in the best interests of African Americans. My answer to that is Brown v. Board of Education (decided by a court full of white men who grew up in Jim Crow America).
"In addition to acting as the final arbiter of interpretation of laws it also is intended to guard against the tyranny of the majority."
Yeah, but in the past it had been only occupied by white males. How is that preventing the tyrrany of the majority?
" I do find it disturbing that the President's entire shortlist had only women on it - that still reeks of tokenism"
I disagree BIG TIME. We need another women there. Its only practical he considers what we need. There are many equally good male candidates however, what we need is a female. Females bring a certain perspective to politics and the public sectar that is beneficial to women, provided they arent patriarchal parrots like Palin.
"Females bring a certain perspective to politics and the public sectar that is beneficial to women, provided they arent patriarchal parrots like Palin."
As I've stated above, I agree that diversifying the court is important, but I fundamentally object to the assumption that a non-liberal woman is not appropriate on the supreme court on the grounds of being too patriarchal. Justices don't represent like-minded interest groups with a women's or a white man's perspective--they represent the law. The reason their gender/race/identity is important is because their interpretation of the law is limited and aided by their human cultural interpretations. Palin's conservative interpretation (BTW, it grosses me out to use her, since she has no J.D., as an example here...) is just as much a woman's perspective as a feminist one, we just happen to know it is rooted in patriarchy.
We can't discount Clarence Thomas's contributions just because as a conservative African-American, his decisions aren't consistent with the ideals of (or necessarily beneficial to) the black community at large.
This is my one major fear about this diversification process: conservative POC and women and liberal white men will be essentially disqualified from appointment and the court will eventually be structured as only white men appointed by Republicans and women and POC appointed by Democrats--standardizing the kind of Us vs. Them politics that diversifying the court is trying to overcome.
" Think about the uproar from the feminist community if the entire short list hd been male?"
Of course we would be pissed. We dont NEED another male. Why would he consider another male when we have enough already? That wreaks of bias and blindness. One should consider gender in the mix just like race and eventually sexual orientation and other attributes.
Conservatives argue Sotomayor has a "hard-left record" and...
Conservatives really get on my nerves sometimes and this subject always gets to me. Didn't Bush appoint three or more judges in the first year or two of his tenure? Judges with a hard-right record of course. Cons thought this was wonderful - democracy in action, Bush was voted in so it's only right he appoints judges who represent his values. But every single time a liberal so much as broaches the subject of judge appointments the cons start lamenting to the heavens about the vile travesty of a lefty pres appointing a judge who represents the same values as the newly voted president.
Hey neo-con! you claim to love democracy so stop hating it every time someone else gets a turn. And get your head out of your ass, I need room for my foot.
Ahem, moving on...
Grats Sotomayer and thanks Obama.
Yes, yes and yes! I am so happy. I know the right wingers will be pissed, but then Bush's nominees pissed me off too. Turn about is fair play.
I am so excited about Sotomayor! Also, the most flak she will get will be around the New Haven case, but I think it will be very, very good for the country to have such a nuanced discussion of race and rights brought to the forefront in the coming months.
I respectfully disagree here. I think the New Haven case might be the worst way for the American public to get introduced into a nuanced discussion about race.
As elucidated below Ricci v. DeStefano is inflammatory at the very minimum, and I think I could definitely see it being used as a reductionist method for people to say no to all instances of racial discrimination in employment.
The test in the case was not thrown out for its content, but rather its results, by a city wary of getting sued. That isn't a good move by the city, and I think most people are going to fall on the side of the 6 white and one Hispanic firefighters who were denied promotions in this instance.
I don't think a situation where a city did not make a nuanced decision is going to be good for nuanced discussion. Ricci v. DeStefano seems like fertile soil for hyperbole from both the left and the right, and from the privileged and underprivileged. In cases like this in the past the rich just get richer in regard to privilege.
I think this will be a lot like Bakke in some regards, in that people will cite this one example as a way to deny that any employment practice can be racially discriminatory.
I agree that this case is similar to Bakke. But the major impact of Bakke was to improve and clarify affirmative action provisions. In fact, the amicus briefs from Bakke--those outlining appropriate affirmative action structures as opposed to UC Davis's intrusive one--have really been Bakke's enduring legacy, contributing to a more nuanced understanding of race relations in America. I'm not sure that won't happen here, especially if Ricci v. DeStefano gets decided by the Supreme Court this summer.
Uhhh, actually we don't know if the test was thrown out by the city because of the result or because of the content, because the court has sealed the test.
So, really, no one can say if the test was fair or not, no one's seen it...But if nooo blacks pass the test, its certainly worth a look to see why the hell not. Unless all the blacks were absolute dipshits I don't see how all of them failed.
"Uhhh, actually we don't know if the test was thrown out by the city because of the result or because of the content, because the court has sealed the test.
So, really, no one can say if the test was fair or not, no one's seen it...But if nooo blacks pass the test, its certainly worth a look to see why the hell not. Unless all the blacks were absolute dipshits I don't see how all of them failed."
Actually, we do know the city's motivations based on the Title VII arguments they made. New Haven admitted to throwing out the test results based on disparate scores among minority groups, and a set of scores that would have led to only white people being made available for promotion. They feared being sued under Title VII, and therefore dismissed the test. The crux of the case is whether they have to actually prove the test is racially discriminatory in order to throw out the results, or whether they can amend things like this after the fact if they don't get the kind of results they like.
The test was actually studied by a qualified homeland security expert who found that it was a good measure of KSA skills, and the critics the city brought in did not actually read the test, so the issue is if the city of New Haven is allowed the throw out these results when they suspect discrimination, or even the negative repercussions of suspected discrimination, or whether they have to prove the test itself is flawed. It's a Title VII clarification issue in which the second circuit is not in line with some opinions filed by the seventh circuit.
The test was not pass/fail, it was simply a case of best score wins (top three, in this instance, with a backup set of four people, all but one of whom were white). White people happened to get the best score. In fact, the third highest score belonged to a dyslexic man who paid to have the written study materials recorded on tape.
Read the writ of certiorari brief by Ricci, and the response by DeStefano for New Haven on the Sup. Court blog. It's very comprehensive.
I'm optimistic about this nomination - from reading on the cases, her decisions all seem logical and well thought-out and I love the fact that she's got tangible experience on the second circuit. Barring some insane mud-slinging from the far right that gets taken seriously, she should be confirmed.
Does anyone have a source with more information on the New Haven case? I'm not sure where I stand on the ruling as I'd like more information on the facts of the case. Googling has got me nothing but anonymous attacks on Sotomayer questioning her intelligence. Nice, that apparently graduating summa cum laude and being on the second circuit for 11 years isn't enough to prove she's intelligent. /sarcasm
On Ricci v. DeStefano, I'd like to know how the exam could have been considered discriminatory to solely African American applicants (and thus cause for a suit against the city). From what I could find, both whites and Hispanics were among those that passed the test for promotion. I'm not saying that Hispanics and African Americans should be put under one umbrella term of 'minority' and be assumed identical groups, far from it. I just want to know if there was a reason for the disparate scores other than "clearly it's discrimination if none of X people happened to pass".
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but these promotional tests are standardized within cities/counties, aren't they? And the applicants should all have the same current position and same general experience within said position to be allowed to qualify for promotion, right? So unless there was a difference in quality of training or study materials available to the firefighters, shouldn't they all have had the same opportunity to pass or fail?
I haven't been able to find much useful information on the details of the case, so any sources would be very much appreciated.
From what I understood, the fire department threw the test results out when deciding promotions based on the fact that no African American's passed the test. They were concerned about the test being biased and therefore not being effective in helping pick those eligible for promotions. In result I believe the white firefighters sued for discrimination in that they passed the test and that was considered.
Did the Hispanics who passed and were also not promoted as a result of the test being thrown out take part in the suit too? And were all of the applicants given another test that was found to be less biased? Where did the city obtain the original test? Was it a change from previous years' exams that were considered neutral?
I'm not sure where I stand on the ruling because I don't feel like I have enough facts. How was the test or process biased? If there was a difference in training given to just the African Americans or just to firefighters at certain stations, then the test should absolutely be thrown out, no question. I'd also like to see the actual numbers and proportions of applicants who passed or failed.
Actually, hispanics and blacks both did more poorly than whites (only one of the people that did really well was hispanic).
The test was created by a IO consulting firm, I believe. I've heard that the organization had information to argue it wasn't discriminatory, but that might just be a rumor.
I really don't know what is tested on a fireman exam for promotion (nor do I have the slightest idea), but I find it harder to imagine it being racially biased than other sorts of tests, personally.
I have no data, but I wonder if there might be differences in length of education between different racial groups of firefighters, that might account for difference in performance. There certainly are overall differences between groups in America, so it wouldn't surprise me if some existed. At the same time, I would think that most firemen have similar levels of education (as the type of job people have is often already related to how much education they have). I dunno though.
One of the firemen that was going to be promoted had dyslexia, or so I've heard, and spent forever studying on tape so that he could do well for the exam. Whether or not the city should have thrown out the test, I feel like the owe him and the others something.
Thank you for the information! I was not aware that overall Hispanics also did worse on it than whites.
". . . but I find it harder to imagine it being racially biased than other sorts of tests, personally."
Yeah, that's what I thought too.
"I have no data, but I wonder if there might be differences in length of education between different racial groups of firefighters, that might account for difference in performance. There certainly are overall differences between groups in America, so it wouldn't surprise me if some existed. At the same time, I would think that most firemen have similar levels of education (as the type of job people have is often already related to how much education they have). I dunno though."
That's exactly what I was wondering. If there are other factors than just the test that could be the reason a certain set of people performed so poorly, then those should be addressed and resolved. Do we know the ratios from different fire stations? What if one particular station did more poorly overall than another?
I've been leaning toward the opinion that the city should have promoted those who passed the test, and then re-tested those who did not, perhaps with another approved exam . . . because if the first exam had been previously thought (and apparently shown by the company that created it) to be accurate and unbiased, why not promote those firefighters who passed it?
It's a really tricky situation to resolve.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but these promotional tests are standardized within cities/counties, aren't they? And the applicants should all have the same current position and same general experience within said position to be allowed to qualify for promotion, right? So unless there was a difference in quality of training or study materials available to the firefighters, shouldn't they all have had the same opportunity to pass or fail?
One question here is whether the test is fair or has a "disparate impact" on a demographic of test-takers. The city's exam review board was split on whether to certify the results -- perhaps believing that to do so would expose the city to discrimination litigation. I don't know what legally constitutes a disparate impact, and in part Ricci seeks to clarify whether it must be proved before the test is tossed.
Overall, the appellate courts must decide what Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires of an employer (especially regarding any possible disparate impact of employment qualifying tests) and to what lengths the employer must or may go to comply with Title VII. Also disputed is whether the decision not to certify the tests constituted a racial classification.
Anyway, this is all my layperson's understanding of the case, which I've only been reading up on the last few days. I highly recommend reading the thorough description of it in this post, which summed up everything heading into oral arguments last month:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/argument-preview-ricci-v-destefano/#more-9241
Thank you very much for the link and summary!
Okay, having now read the oral arguments, I disagree with the ruling initially made on the grounds that the city should have had to have evidence that the exam was in fact disparate before throwing it out on fear of discrimination suits. I think that doing so is unfair to the firefighters who passed.
I'm not sure what I think on the racial classification issue as it really swings either way depending on how you look at it.
Hmm. I'm definitely going to be following this one more closely to see what happens.
From what I've read, this particular test is very different from ones used in other similar cities & counties across the nation, in part because of its heavy reliance on multiple choice questions in lieu of simulated real-world scenarios.
She has a "hard-left" record? I guess no one heard about this then:
"In Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush,[43] Sotomayor upheld the Bush administration's implementation of the "Mexico City Policy" which requires foreign organizations receiving U.S. funds to "neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations". Sotomayor held that the policy did not constitute a violation of equal protection, as the government "is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds".[44]"
I just logged in to post about that. I'm not sure what my thoughts are...
Why is the government free to favor an anti-abortion position of access to abortion is a right prescribed by the judiciary?
*if access to abortion
Jessica,
I am so glad you posted this. I read about this in the NYT this morning and posted it on my facebook.
This does not make me happy at all and I agree with "thanxgoodall" in that it is my litmus test for judges as well and I would be much happier with any other liberal with a strong pro-choice record.
Yeah, I'm with you on this one...abortion rulings are pretty much my litmus test when looking at judges and potential judges. I'm not as excited about her nomination as I would be otherwise-great that she's a woman, but as a woman myself who is greatly concerned about access to family planning, I'm not going to leap up and shout for joy quite yet. Personally, I think I would be more stoked at this point if it was a liberal old white dude with a strong pro-choice record.
I agree that I am not really excited about her record concerning reproductive rights, and there is very little in her record pertaining to Gay civil rights as well which are two areas that I am very interested in. So while I applaud this nomination, I am not going to start getting too excited yet. That being said, groups that I respect seem to be supporting her nomination so perhaps they know some insider baseball that I am not privy to. If anyone has any more information on either of these two issue areas I would love to have it.
I think it's a convenient distraction that Obama announced this on the same day as the prop 8 ruling.
Why? That would only make sense if Obama were in some way responsible for or in any way related to Prop. 8 or California jurisprudence.
Agreed
I wish I could be more excited about this. I would love to see a WOC on SCOTUS. But, as I keep reading, her record on abortion is limited, and seems to indicate a somewhat anti-choice stance.
Even if she would oppose completely overturning Roe, I'm concerned that she might favor decisions which chip away at reproductive rights.
Being female and a WOC doesn't impress much when you have the kind of appalling rulings on your record that this woman does.
Can't we find someone who ACTUALLY believes in right for ALL for the supreme court?
Oh right. No, we can't.
"Can't we find someone who ACTUALLY believes in right for ALL for the supreme court?"
Could you clarify?
That is, what makes you believe that Sotomayor is not somebody who "actually believes in rights for all".
A quick glance at wikipedia will reveal her troublesome, anti-woman rulings and opinions.
At a cursory glance, I see 2 women-related decisions on the wikipedia page.
1) The decision that Bush Jr.'s ban on public funds for clinics that perform abortions or promote them as a family planning method did not constitute a violation of the equal protection clause. It's one thing to believe abortion should be illegal, and quite another to believe that the federal government's actions in a particular case do not violate one of the federal constitution's amendments. This is not extremely troubling for me.
2) A dissension from the majority opinion, where she stated her belief that a series of strip searches of juvenile girls in detention were unlawful, because the girls in question had never been individually suspected of or charged with any crimes. That sounds like pro-woman to me.
Ayla, you called her decisions "appalling." Why don't you just tell us what you find appalling?
Ayla is a professional whiner. Things are outrageous to her because she enjoys being outraged.
I have to say, that nominating a Hispanic woman is great and all, but, her politics are truly frightening. Her sex and her race are irrelevant when compared to her politics. Her politics could, and rightfully so, keep her from winning. She's bad choice.
I think I agree with you in that I would have preferred to see Obama to nominate a true progressive. But, I never thought that was very likely. Sotomayor isn't who *I* would have nominated for the Supreme Court, if through some impossibility I were President of America. But I'm pretty pleased Obama did. I don't think Sotomayor's Mexico City ruling indicates she will be THAT anti-choice, necessarily. It was a pretty specific, unique situation. Overall, I think she's about as good as progressives and/or feminists could have hoped for.
And Sotomayor did rule in favor of privacy rights for teenage girls who were the victims of strip searches, in constrast to one notably atrocious recent ruling by the Supremes.
I'm sure Ginsburg will be happy to welcome another female. I still think we need another woman to replace her in the case of retirement. Of course if Ginsburg retires, we should get another woman.
I don't presume to know how Ginsburg will feel to "welcome another female," but I'm sure she'll retire in the next three years and be replaced by an Asian or a woman, ideally both.
Many of her rulings have been overturned by the Supreme Court, which is bothersome to me. The language used by justices when explaining reasons for overturning her rulings is very...not good. I don't think I know anywhere near enough to say anything about the legal stuff, but that many overturned rulings makes me uncomfortable. I've attempted to look at the rulings online, but like I mentioned I'm not a legal scholar and don't really understand much of the terminology used.
That's worrisome to me, too, combined with the fact that she has very little in the way of a paper trail, so it's hard to get a handle on her meaning in her decisions. I'd really like to clarify her opinion on Title VII, but her Ricci v. DeStefano coverage is nigh non-existent in documentation.
The fact that a lot of her decisions have been reversed is a bad trend. Justices can and do get chewed up and spit out by superior legal minds on the court, or more forceful opinion-renderers. Say what you want about Scalia's interpretations, but he's a brilliant writer, and I would hope Obama's gotten someone who can actually go toe-to-toe with him.
This meme has been debunked.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/199955