WH: Sotomayor reversal proves what a great judge she is (Robert Gibbs gets points for chutzpah)

Hotair ^ | 6/30/2009 | Ed Morrissey

[SeekAndFind]

Give Robert Gibbs points for chutzpah, if not logic or consistency. When the White House press corp peppered him with questions about the status of Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination after getting reversed on Ricci, Gibbs explained that the ruling proved that Sotomayor was — get ready — a judicial originalist. Not only that, but it turns out that the administration had already rejected part of Sotomayor’s previous judgment on Ricci before the court reversed it:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The White House came to the defense of President Obama’s pick to be the newest Supreme Court justice after Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s ruling in a racially charged case was reversed by the Supreme Court.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs all but accused the current court of “judicial activism,” a buzz term used by conservatives in recent years, in overturning what the White House saw as Sotomayor’s upholding of precedent. …

But Gibbs said that the case “denotes that [Sotomayor] is a follower of precedent,” and the arguments over judicial activism “seem to be at the very least upside-down in this case.”

Gibbs said the case proves “she doesn’t legislate from the bench.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not even the Supreme Court’s dissenters to Ricci would go that far. As Stuart Taylor notes in his analysis of the dissent, none of the nine justices defended Sotomayor’s judgment or reasoning in Ricci [emphasis mine]:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What’s more striking is that the court was unanimous in rejecting the Sotomayor panel’s specific holding. Her holding was that New Haven’s decision to spurn the test results must be upheld based solely on the fact that highly disproportionate numbers of blacks had done badly on the exam and might file a “disparate-impact” lawsuit — regardless of whether the exam was valid or the lawsuit could succeed.

This position is so hard to defend, in my view, that I hazarded a prediction in my June 13 column: “Whichever way the Supreme Court rules in the case later this month, I will be surprised if a single justice explicitly approves the specific, quota-friendly logic of the Sotomayor-endorsed… opinion” by U.S. District Judge Janet Arterton.

Unlike some of my predictions, this one proved out. In fact, even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s 39-page dissent for the four more liberal justices quietly but unmistakably rejected the Sotomayor-endorsed position that disparate racial results alone justified New Haven’s decision to dump the promotional exam without even inquiring into whether it was fair and job-related.

Justice Ginsburg also suggested clearly — as did the Obama Justice Department, in a friend-of-the-court brief — that the Sotomayor panel erred in upholding summary judgment for the city. Ginsburg said that the lower courts should have ordered a jury trial to weigh the evidence that the city’s claimed motive — fear of losing a disparate impact suit by low-scoring black firefighters if it proceeded with the promotions — was a pretext. The jury’s job would have been to consider evidence that the city’s main motive had been to placate black political leaders who were part of Mayor John DeStefano’s political base.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wait, wait, wait — the Obama administration filed a brief against Sotomayor’s judgment? Their argument was that Sotomayor overreached in issuing a summary judgment, a point that won unanimous approval from the Supreme Court. Isn’t that the definition of “judicial activism”?

Now the White House wants to pretend that Sotomayor is an originalist, when they themselves fought against her activist ruling. That’s impressively Orwellian.

[hoosiermama]

Rag-dad Bob at it again!

[DonaldC]

I guess some racists are less racists than others.

[Adder]

A judicial originalist???

WTF?

I can’t even get outraged anymore.

Stupid lying bas-$%@^s *^*^$%*%#^!!!

[cranked]

They had to have TurboTax failure Geithner.
They had to have Porkulus.
They had to pass the pork laden budget.
They have to have the job-killing tax our collective arses Cap and Trade.
They have to have ObamaCare.
They have to have Sotomayor because she is 1) a female and 2) a Latino.

Hence why Gibbs, along with the other delusional Libs and Dems in Washington have to make propaganda-ridden excuses to HAVE Sotomayor.

The jest here: They needed NONE of what they claimed to the American people they had to have......

Welcome to Barry’s World. Be sure to kiss America as we all knew it, goodbye.

[Walrus]

Obama (peace be upon him) and his lackey of a press secretary have now fully implemented George Orwell’s Newspeak as the official language of the Administration.

How long will the press corps continue to countenance this BS?

Wouldn’t it be funny if Gibbs called a press conference and only Helen Thomas showed up?

[Servant of the Cross]

Sotomayor reversal proves what a great judge racist she is. There, fixed it.

[NMEwithin]

America’s first Black President...defending blatant racism. What a strange, strange world...

[21twelve]

Here’s an old thread about an even older booklet, written in 1938. “The Revolution Was”, talking about FDR and the new deal. It is ALL happening AGAIN. Almost rote!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/929392/posts

Here’s an excerpt pertaining to the Constitution:

It may be however that people are so deeply attached by habit and conscience to the symbols of the established order that to attack them directly would produce a bad reaction. In that case the revolutionary propagandist must be subtle.......

Really it is quite simple. For example, if the propagandist said, “Down with the Constitution!” bluntly like that he would be defeated because of the way the Constitution is enshrined in the American conscience. But he can ask: “Whose Constitution?” That question may become a slogan. He can ask; “Shall the Constitution be construed to hold say it is.”

And that creates an image, which is a symbol. He can then ask: “shall the Constitution be construed to hold property rights above human rights?” Or, as the President [FDR] did, he may regretfully associate the Constitution with “horse-and-buggy days.”

[shankbear]

But hey.....Michael Jackson is still dead.

[BJClinton]

Gibbs explained that the ruling proved that Sotomayor was — get ready — a judicial originalist

I often wonder if Liberals believe the crap that comes out of their mouths.