Here's something most likely to go unnoticed as the mainstream media continues reporting on the fallout of the New Haven firefighter case.
In his "Bench Memos" blog, National Review's Ed Whelan explains in "9-0 Against Sotomayor" how even the four liberal justices in today's Ricci v. DeStefano ruling thought Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor goofed in issuing summary judgment for New Haven when the case was before her (italics Whelan's, bold mine):
In footnote 10 of her dissent, Justice Ginsburg states: "Ordinarily, a remand for fresh consideration [whether the City of New Haven in fact had good cause to act] would be in order." But because the majority saw no need to remand, Ginsburg explains "why, if final disposition by this Court is indeed appropriate, New Haven should be the prevailing party." (Emphasis added.)
In other words, Ginsburg doesn't believe that final disposition of the case is appropriate. She and her fellow dissenters therefore believe that Sotomayor and her Second Circuit colleagues and the district court were wrong to grant summary judgment to the City of New Haven.
To be fair, this is a footnote in the dissent and general assignment reporters are unlikely to read the ruling that thoroughly. Legal experts paid by networks for their expertise, on the other hand, may be held to a higher standard for failing to notice the significance.
At any rate, thanks to Whelan and the conservative blogosphere, what may go unnoticed and unheralded in the mainstream media will not remain completely unreported as we move forward to Sotomayor's confirmation hearings.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Good Luck
June 29, 2009 - 12:51 ET by JDWHow will this interfere with her chances? SCOTUS has overturned her more then 60% of the time.
JDW
DAILY WAVE
When people fear their government there is tyranny.
When government fears the people there is liberty.
FactCheck.org says...
June 29, 2009 - 13:04 ET by Jen7Three of her appellate opinions have been overturned, which is 1.3 percent of all that she has written and 60 percent of those reviewed by the Supreme Court.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_percentage_of_sonia_sotomayors_opinions_have.htmlpresently
Of the majority opinions that Judge Sonia Sotomayor has authored since becoming an appellate judge in 1998, three of them have been overturned by the Supreme Court.
Our search for appellate opinions by Sotomayor on the LexisNexis database returned 232 cases. That's a reversal rate of 1.3 percent.
But only five of her decisions have been reviewed by the justices. Using five as a denominator, the rate comes out to 60 percent.
Your Point?
June 29, 2009 - 13:25 ET by JDWWill the libs vote on her track record?
Does she miss the forest for the trees?
I have read about clerks who expressed concerns about her ability to retain technical legal details, what does that say about her?
JDW
DAILY WAVE
When people fear their government there is tyranny.
When government fears the people there is liberty.
I have routinely found
June 29, 2009 - 14:00 ET by G. MayI have routinely found factcheck.org not only to be slipshod in their approach to checking facts and therefore unreliable as a fact checking site, but also quite biased in their approach.
Re Factcheck
June 29, 2009 - 14:32 ET by slickwillie2001Agreed, Factcheck is run by the liberal Annenberg Organization, not a reputable outfit. Their public opinion polls are also suspect. Snopes is no better.
G. May
July 2, 2009 - 13:58 ET by Jen7Care to prove it?
As you may presently yourself be fully made aware of, my grammar sucks.
Family Guy
Many Ways to Find Facts - Factcheck.org NOT one of them
June 29, 2009 - 14:45 ET by Retired Geekfactcheck.org is NOT one of them.
Barack Obama and William Ayers were on the Board of Annenburg, which owns and operates factcheck.org.
If there was a foundation named 'John Doe Foundation' and Karl Rove and George Bush were on the Board of Directors and both had been CEO's of of institutions owned and operated by 'John Doe Foundation' and 'John Doe Foundation' owned and operated a website named HonestFacts.org.
Would you trust facts issued by 'HonestFacts.org' about George Bush - that is exactly what you are doing with FactCheck.org and Barack Obama.
Response
June 29, 2009 - 15:55 ET by JDWNone, what does that say?
I attempted to query Alito and Roberts yet was unable to find them.
JDW
DAILY WAVE
When people fear their government there is tyranny.
When government fears the people there is liberty.
I guess a Latina really isn't better in ruling on the law
June 29, 2009 - 12:50 ET by east tennessee johnWhen your own folks say you goofed on the application of the law, how is the state run media going to spin this? This is a perfect illustration of her incapability,not because of the vote, but because of the reprimand about the law, that disqualifies Sonia.
Was this goof an outward
June 29, 2009 - 12:56 ET by ForeverOnTheRightWas this goof an outward expample of her, sexist/racist comment about latino women making better judgements than white men? Possibly.
Something is peeking through
June 29, 2009 - 13:02 ET by 10ksnookerAnd it isn't pretty. Once a racist bigot, always aracist bigot.
But can you say, every Supreme Court needs their bigot? Afterall, you can say every Senate needs their KKK member.
Racial
June 29, 2009 - 13:07 ET by JDW¿Latinos?
JDW
DAILY WAVE
When people fear their government there is tyranny.
When government fears the people there is liberty.
Exactly - Latino is not a
June 29, 2009 - 15:23 ET by Tom PaineExactly - Latino is not a race. It is an ethniciy that encompasses several races. But I guess liberals just can't get the same horsepower by preemptively calling you an Ethnist.
→ Latino
June 29, 2009 - 15:26 ET by Cool ArrowIf a wise female latina racist says it's a race, doesn't that make it a race?
I wonder if she meant "wise latina female, as far as latina females go."
I'm just trying to help her out here, with my limited wise honky male wisdom.
Under my plan of a cap & trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket - BHO
Caucasian Firefighters Were Racist
June 29, 2009 - 16:03 ET by JDWLibs suck-up to the Latinos, racist?
Whities (male, female, R...) who have lived in the countries or speak the language?
JDW
DAILY WAVE
When people fear their government there is tyranny.
When government fears the people there is liberty.
Disturbing indeed.
June 29, 2009 - 13:31 ET by ApodicticThe need for competence and expertise in filling the promotional vacancies was never mentioned. It was all about race and the inference that because one minority group failed - the testing was inherently flawed.
This is no different than the dumbing down of government education in order to accomodate that segment of the population that is least likely to succeed. Thus, everyone suffers when playing to the lowest common denominator.
Everyone should re-read Slouching Toward Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline - Robert H. Bork. Do you think the NEA will endorse this book as required reading? Yeah right.
Thanks for pointing out
June 29, 2009 - 14:17 ET by pahuberThanks for pointing out another liberal organization who 'checks' facts for liberals in need.
Jen7 have you sought help with your dementia?
Factwhat?
June 29, 2009 - 16:45 ET by snaggletoothieFactcheck used to be called Liberals Will Belive Anything.com until a bold tactical move lead them to put out the same lies under a new name. The 2nd place name was ObamaSays.com.
SPIN CYCLE set to Warp Speed
June 29, 2009 - 21:38 ET by DeskpilotOnly because I wanted to see some of the other spin machines fall to pieces, did I troll around in the sewer. I found a gem of a spin machine running so fast and going nowhere that the truth will eventually lap him. Salon.com's Glenn Greenwald today opined on the magnificance of Four Supreme Court Justices agreeing with SCOTUS nominee Sonya Sotomayor:
<blockquote>
In the now famous "white firefighter" affirmative action case -- Ricci v. DeStefano -- the Supreme Court today, in a 5-4 ruling (.pdf), reversed the decision of a unanimous Second Circuit Court of Appeals panel (which included Judge Sonia Sotomayor) and held that the firefighters were the victims of unlawful racial discrimination. The Court split along standard ideological lines (Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, Alito and Kennedy in the majority), with Kennedy writing the Court's opinion. Four Justices agreed with the Second Circuit's panel, including David Souter, the Justice whom Sotomayor has been nominated to replace. Several points are noteworthy about this decision:
(1) In light of today's ruling, it's a bit difficult -- actually, impossible -- for a rational person to argue that Sotomayor's Ricci decision places her outside the judicial mainstream when: (a) she was affirming the decision of the federal district court judge; (b) she was joined in her decision by the two other Second Circuit judges who, along with her, comprised a unanimous panel; (c) a majority of Second Circuit judges refused to reverse that panel's ruling; and now: (d) four out of the nine Supreme Court Justices -- including the ones she is to replace -- agree with her.
Put another way, 11 out of the 21 federal judges to rule on Ricci ruled as Sotomayor did. It's perfectly reasonable to argue that she {and 10 other judges} ruled erroneously, but it's definitively unreasonable to claim that her Ricci ruling places her on some sort of judicial fringe.
<blockquote>
She, and they were WRONG. PERIOD END OF DISCUSSION.
Today's SCOTUS MAJORITY opion clearly laid out the failures of the City of New Haven, The District Court and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals were WRONG in the way that they failed to look at this case, they way they were WRONG for interpretting the applicable provisions of Title VII, and they were applied the WRONG standard of measuring what law or [revious rulings applied.
For all of her insight, (using only her left eye,) even Justice Ginberg was playing in a fantasy world.
Under our Constitution, the MAJORITY of the Justices of the Supreme Court decides cases, not the number of idiotic, ill informed, empathetic judges lined up like rubber ducks in a shooting gallery.
Greenwald is so close to another name, I thought I was reading Clark Griswald:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qc_RYm0ylA
Can't wait to read the digestion of Olberdouche on this one. I don't give NBC/MSNBC/CNBC the right to broadcast to my TVs.
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, You're welcome - Deskpilot, AM(H)1 (AW), USN (Ret)
Dp... Much thanks....that
June 29, 2009 - 21:40 ET by bigtimerDp...
Much thanks....that was rich.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
My pleasure nt
June 29, 2009 - 21:47 ET by DeskpilotIf you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, You're welcome - Deskpilot, AM(H)1 (AW), USN (Ret)