Skip to comments.The Administration's Line on Sotomayor and the New Haven Fire Fighters
Posted on 05/26/2009 6:08:41 PM PDT by Nachum
The New Haven firefighter case is one of the most controversial rulings in Sotomayor's record, and one that will no doubt be a prime source of criticism from conservatives. The case, Ricci vs. DeStefano, was brought by Frank Ricci and a group of his firefighting colleagues (all non-black including one Hispanic man). The men were denied promotion after an examination to determine their eligibility to move up yielded no successful black candidates. As a result, the New Haven authority decided to discard the exam results and grant no promotions. Ricci and his colleagues argued they'd been discriminated against, but their case was dismissed. Sotomayor was part of a three judge panel on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals who upheld the dismissal. The case is currently pending before the Supreme Court. It raised considerable ire, sparking affirmative action debates.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.newsweek.com ...
The list, ping
Since when does the second circuit have a law?
Federal law is federal law period!
Sotomayor was wrong on this issue and even when shown just how wrong she was on it still wouldn;t change her mind. Sotomayor is narrow and bigoted.
Firefighters have a website with info on the case.
” Sotomayor is narrow and bigoted.”
She can’t be. Only White males and Christians are narrow minded and bigoted. She has been oppressed by the White Man.
Ask jesse jackson or al sharption, they will tell you.
That would NOT be the case is there was but ONE Republitard, who had a "pair."
Sadly, the Sheeple will make a feeble attempt at questioning her regarding her judicial philosophy and with our own (Vermont's) extreme, partisan, hack, Leaky Leahy, as Chair, its a forgone conclusion, the this moronic, activist, moonbat, will be confirmed.
I don't doubt a word of that but still wonder what this sentence; It applied second circuit law very faithfully, taken from the subject article means.
The second circuit cannot have it's own law can it? What am I missing here?
If Sotomayor were running it, it would have.
"It was a unanimous decision by the panel that she sat on. It applied second circuit law very faithfully. It did rely upon what was a very thoughtful well written district court opinion," one official said. "The ruling there I think was a fairly constrained application of what the law of the second circuit is.
And again I ask what the h*ll is "second circuit law"? Federal law is federal law everywhere is it not?
You know, diversity sucks. Reading stuff like this makes me wish I was Japanese. No s*** like this in homogeneous countries.
Good info, thanks. This woman is a radical.
She’s a racist.
By the libs own standard: she is in a position of power (i.e. the Second Circuit) to enforce her racially motivated decisions.
This woman said (basically) that decisions should be made from not the law, but ‘empathy’.
So now the defense is that she followed the law?
My head hurts.
However, those statutes and regulations are drafted by fallible human beings who do not always write with complete clarity or think of every possible situation in which those statutes and regulations might be applied.
Often there can be reasonable questions about the meaning of those statutes and regulations and their application that can result in slightly different interpretations among the circuits. One of the duties of the SCOTUS in fact is to resolve conflicts in interpretations and applications among the various circuits.
The Newsweek writer should have used the term “precedents” or “interpretations” of the Second Circuit rather than “laws” of the Second Circuit. Newsweek editors must have really been asleep on their keyboards for this poorly worded article to make it to the internet.
It seems to me that in this case they have gone far beyond "slightly"! In fact, it appears to this writer that they were trying to bury this case before it saw the light of day. A clear case of judicial misconduct IMHO.
One of the duties of the SCOTUS in fact is to resolve conflicts in interpretations and applications among the various circuits.
Absolutely! But this goes far beyond a simple misinterpretation IMHO.
I can certainly appreciate your views, but I’ll reserve judgment until I can study the record and the law and precedents in the issues involved.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.