Libertarians blast Sotomayor pick

The Libertarian Party ^ | 5/26/09 | The Libertarian Party

[VirginiaConstitutionalist]

Libertarians blast Sotomayor pick
Obama Court nominee ruled government should discriminate based on race

WASHINGTON -- America’s third largest party Tuesday criticized President Barack Obama’s nomination of federal appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, citing past rulings that public employers should discriminate in hiring based on race.

“While Judge Sotomayor deserves a fair and impartial hearing, Supreme Court justices should be nominated for their thorough knowledge of and adherence to the Constitution and the rule of law,” said William Redpath, Libertarian National Committee Chairman.

“By nominating Sonia Sotomayor, Barack Obama has made it clear he prefers an activist for his personal causes over a rational interpreter of law,” said Redpath.

According to Cato Institute Vice President for Legal Affairs Roger Pilon, Sotomayor is “the most radical of all the frequently mentioned candidates before him.”

Sotomayor is best known for the Ricci v. DeStafano case, in which the New Haven, Conn. fire department decided it didn’t like the results of an officers promotion exam in which whites and Hispanic firefighters outperformed black firefighters. The city threw out the results of the exam, denying several firefighters promotions solely because of their race. The firefighters sued the city, claiming racial discrimination under Title VVI of the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Cato Institute, Reason Foundation and the Individual Rights Foundations filed briefs on behalf of the firefighters, citing the absurdity of allowing public employers to throw out the results of valid, race-neutral exams that produce racial disparity because the racial disparity produced wasn’t politically correct. The firefighters and the libertarian foundations filing briefs argued that public employment practices should be color-blind.

Sotomayor disagreed, ruling the city has a right to discriminate against white and Hispanic public employees to construct a politically correct racial mix in hiring, even if it goes against the results of a racially-neutral competency exam.

The case is now before the Supreme Court. Sotomayor has had her rulings thrown out by the court a troubling four times. In three of those cases, the Court ruled Sotomayor had incorrectly interpreted the law.

“It is troubling that Obama, who won the highest elected office in the world without racial preferences, would nominate someone who openly admits the government should racially discriminate against its own citizens to serve the needs of political correctness,” said Redpath.

“Libertarians believe that, while the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of association allows private parties to hire whomever they please, government has no right to discriminate. Public employers should treat all citizens of all colors, races and ethnicities with equal respect and value and Sotomayor’s radical rulings are a jarring departure from that principle.”

For more information on this issue, or to arrange an interview with the Libertarian Party, please call Director of Communications Donny Ferguson at 703-200-3669 or 202-333-0008, x. 225, or email Donny.Ferguson@lp.org.

The Libertarian Party is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971 as an alternative to the two main political parties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party by visiting http://www.LP.org. The Libertarian Party proudly stands for smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom.

# # #

[fieldmarshaldj]

We can oppose, but will Republican Senators oppose ?

[Prophet in the wilderness]

Yes... if they get rid of their jellyfish back disease.
i.e. no back bone.

[Mojave]

Libertarians believe that private people shouldn’t be bound to these since they must pay the penalty for whomever they hire.

Same for the government.

[timm22]

bookmark

[Jewbacca]

That’s an impressive news release.

[Landru]

Glad to hear the Libertarian Party weigh in on the side of common sense, as usual.

"According to Cato Institute Vice President for Legal Affairs Roger Pilon, Sotomayor is 'the most radical of all the frequently mentioned candidates before him.'"

HA!!
Perhaps before him, maybe.
But hardly the most radical of all.

Much like Dr. Who's pockets are infinitely deep with any & everything contained within, zerO has an unlimited supply of flaky clowns.

[In veno, veritas]

Continue reading! “Governments typically don’t face the same market forces...” And I'll clarify, they are a monopoly; no one can drive them out of business. As seen in current news, it does not matter how much money they lose. There is no driver for them to be efficient.

[Clintonfatigued]

I am somewhat surprised. Sotomayer would be great for a Lifetime Television biography, but not for the Supreme Court. However, she fills out all of the quotas, and she has a thin paper trail on several controversial issues.

[Clintonfatigued]

The Libertarian Party is right to blast this opinionated, biased judge.

[Mojave]

“Governments typically don’t face the same market forces...”

Not only is your argument a legal non sequitur, it's untrue that market forces aren't at play in government contracting.

[In veno, veritas]

Oh really? Libertarian philosophy says that discrimination is a cost to people and businesses. Regulation is unnecessary since people are generally profit seeking and in competitive markets, discriminatory businesses while be driven out of the market, ceteras paribus. Governments, on the other hand, are not in a competitive market nor are they profit seeking. Therefore libertarians support laws and regulations that bind governments to support equal protection. For if a government discriminates against a race, there is nothing that compels the government to stop other than politics.

That is the Libertarian stance as I understand it. Whatever you may call it, it is not a non sequitur.

[Mojave]

Libertarian philosophy says that discrimination is a cost to people and businesses.

1. Where does it "say" that?

2. What does that have to do with your contention that anti-discrimination laws explicitly binding both government and non-government entities only apply to the government?

Governments, on the other hand, are not in a competitive market

Bzzzzt. Wrong.

The work of the government occurs through a competitive marketplace. Did you think that government staffers build the roads that the Libertarians drive on? Or that the roads just magically appeared?

The Federal Acquisition Regulations and the Procurement Integrity Act require that the products and services paid for by government are determined by an involved and carefully documented competitive bidding process.

For if a government discriminates against a race, there is nothing that compels the government to stop other than politics.

Except the same market forces that exist in the private sector. Government agencies all have budgets limited to fixed amounts of appropriated funds for the coming year. If they can't meet stated their mission statement goals with the funds available, careers are forfeited. And while someone in the private sector can hand off a job to a son-in-law without competitive bidding, if a government contracting officer tries that he or she will go to prison.

[verity]

The confirmation hearings will provide entertainment.

[In veno, veritas]

Ludwig von Mises: "An employer or an employee entrusted with the management of a department of an enterprise is free to discriminate in hiring workers, to fire them arbitrarily, or to cut down their wages below the market rate. But in indulging in such arbitrary acts he jeopardizes the profitability of his enterprise." From Human Action. "True, the entrepreneur is free to give full rein to his whims, to dismiss workers off hand, to cling stubbornly to antiquated processes, deliberately to choose unsuitable methods of production and to allow himself to be guided by motives which conflict with the demands of consumers. But when and in so far as he does this he must pay for it." From Socialism

On pt. 2 - that is not the issue; it is what should be, not what is. In the headline case, the Libertarians are defending the firefighters because governments ought to abide by nondiscrimination rules. I doubt they would do so if it was a private business.

No, I am not wrong. Take a few economics courses. Here is a descent paper: http://www.jcer.or.jp/eng/pdf/kenho0703e.pdf

[jla]

WAKE UP AMERICA!.....WE ARE IN DEEP SHIT! THIS WOMAN IS AS RADICAL AS THEY COME!

No kidding. Whom did you expect Zero to nominate, a Bork protégé? What is worse, there is nothing that will be done about it. The Rs in the Senate will, again, lie down.

[Mojave]

In the headline case, the Libertarians are defending the firefighters because governments ought to abide by nondiscrimination rules. I doubt they would do so if it was a private business.

Yep. That's their lawless double standard.

Take a few economics courses

So I can become as ignorant as you about government contracting and the private sector?

[In veno, veritas]

Okay, so why did you ask the question in post 7? It seems you already have your answer and want to be a troll and post the ad hominem attack. If you wanted to debate the idea, then state so.

[Mojave]

It seems you already have your answer

It was a non sequitur and a falsehood, rolled into one.

Being subject to market forces does not exempt you from the law, Libertarian bovine excrement notwithstanding. Plus the government is also subject to market forces, as demonstrated but not refuted.

Read a book, ignorant one.

[In veno, veritas]

Okay, get this: If I call a piece of fruit red and another one orange, that isn't a double standard, it's apples and oranges. If you can't see that the government is not the same as a business, it's not I who is ignorant. We set different rules on the government all the time. One of these we like to call the Constitution. Try debating without ad hominem sometime.

[Mojave]

it's apples and oranges.

Your distinguishing feature was being subject to market forces. Both are, your extraordinary ignorance notwithstanding.