ABC's Jan Crawford Greenburg: 'Almost Impossible' to Stop Sotomayor

Photo of Scott Whitlock.

ABC senior legal correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg on Thursday examined a controversial decision judge and Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor made on racial discrimination, while, at the same time, repeatedly declaring that it would be "almost impossible" for Senate Republicans to derail her promotion to the high court. Talking with "Good Morning America" host Robin Roberts, Greenburg asserted, "She's qualified. She's experienced. It's going to be almost impossible for Republicans to do anything to stop her."

Later, after recounting the large Democratic majority, she again proclaimed, "And it's going to be almost impossible, like I said." Now, considering the unfolding revelations about Sotomayor's comments on legislating from the bench, her assertion that a "wise Latina woman" would often reach a better conclusion than a white male, wouldn't it make more sense to not portray the federal judge's nomination as inevitable and as a self fulfilling prophecy?

On balance, however, Greenburg should be commended for filing a report that actually examined the 2003 case of a white, New Haven, Connecticut firefighter who filed a discrimination lawsuit after being denied a promotion, despite obtaining the highest score in a exam. Greenburg pointedly explained the involvement of the nominee: "Sotomayor and two fellow judges dismissed the white firefighters claims and 2000 pages of court papers and filings in one paragraph."

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Greenburg also featured a conservative voice, Wendy Long of the Judicial Confirmation Network. She observed, "It leads one to think that Judge Sotomayor and her two colleagues who were involved in the case, simply wanted to bury the claims of the New Haven firefighters."

A transcript of the May 28 segment, which aired at 7:13am, follows:

ROBIN ROBERTS: We're going to turn now to the brewing battle over President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court. Judge Sonia Sotomayor is back home in New York after the historic announcement at the White House. She is facing a confirmation fight from Republicans who are already building their case against her by focusing in on a ruling she made in a discrimination case involving firefighters. Senior legal correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg has more on that for us. Good morning, Jan.

ABC GRAPHIC: New Nominee's Race Case Controversy: White Firefighters Claim Discrimination

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Good morning, Robin. You know, that decision is before the Supreme Court. And conservatives have seized on it in these early efforts to try to build a case against Judge Sotomayor. This wasn't a traditional discrimination case.

LT. MATT MARCARELLI (New Haven, CT Fire Department): Every day I go to work, I have to pin this lieutenant's badge on me, it reminds me, I got screwed out of a captain's badge because of the color of my skin.

GREENBURG: Matt Marcarelli, a 15-year veteran firefighter got the top score on a promotions exam. He was first in line for captain. But not everyone did so well. In fact, not one of the 28 black candidates in a field of 118, scored high enough to be promoted.

VICTOR BOLDEN (Attorney, New Haven City): It looks like the exam might have been discriminatory against some of the minority test-takers. And that was certainly a red flag for the city under the law.

GREENBURG: Black firefighters said the test was unfair.

LT. GARY TINNEY (New Haven, CT fire department): Written tests aren't the way to judge a person on how they perform at their job.

GREENBURG: The city decided to throw out the test results, fearing a lawsuit by the black firefighters. They got one anyway, from the white and Hispanic firefighters, who said New Haven's discriminated against them. They lost in court and they appealed. And that's how the case got to Sonia Sotomayor. What has all of Washington talking is what happened next. Sotomayor and two fellow judges dismissed the white firefighters claims and 2000 pages of court papers and filings in one paragraph.

WENDY LONG (Counsel, Judicial Confirmation Network): It leads one to think that Judge Sotomayor and her two colleagues who were involved in the case, simply wanted to bury the claims of the New Haven firefighters.

GREENBURG: On the next appeal to the full 13-member court, the judges were more conflicted. Six sharply objected to the short, unsigned on to the opinion, saying it failed to examine any of the law. The Supreme Court agreed to consider the case. In arguments last month, the justices indicated they may rule against the city and give the white and Hispanic firefighters another chance. Now, Sotomayor's supporters defend that one-paragraph decision. They say the law was so clear, she really didn't need to do anything more. We'll see what the Supreme Court says next month. Its decision is expected before Sotomayor's confirmation hearings get under way. Robin?

ROBERTS: Well, Jan, of course her friends are saying one thing. Republican-leaning voices are saying quite another, even going as far as to call her, being a racist [sic]. How effective can those efforts be in derailing her nomination?

GREENBURG: Well, Robin, at the end of the day, Republicans are saying privately, and some that I've spoken with, that they really see no chance. I mean, you have got a solid majority of Democrats in the Senate. You have got a really popular President. So, unless something, you know, scandalous comes out and we have no indication that's going to happen at this point. She's qualified. She's experienced. It's going to be almost impossible for Republicans to do anything to stop her.

ROBERTS: It's rare to see someone not get a nomination. Not to be confirmed. I mean, we've had withdrawals. Harriet Miers comes to mind. Bork, of course, was rejected, But, it's not that common, is it?

GREENBURG: No. You've got to go 20 years, really, to Judge Robert Bork. The Senate rejected his nomination based of his ideology. They didn't agree with his approach to the law. But, that was a really different time. Democrats had control of the Senate. And you had a Republican in the White House. You know, here you have got Democrats in the Senate and a Democrat in the White House. And Republicans are kind of, just sitting there, trying to make this case. And it's going to be almost impossible, like I said.

—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Of course it's impossible to stop Sotomayor

With RINO's like borrin' Orrin Hatch, John McCain, John Cornyn and the other Wussypants Republicans defending our interests and wacko socialist DemonRats in control, Hugo Chavez could count on wearing black robes in Washington!  Be afraid, be very afraid!

Angry White Dude

www.angrywhitedude.c...

Now that Sotomayor's membership in La Raza is known...

...that may be the key to keeping this idiot racist off of the SCOTUS.

-But only of the repubs pick the ball up and run with it.

-Dave

Good luck on that one,

Good luck on that one, Dave.  Calling La Raza a racist organization is racist, dontcha know!  They will fight tooth and nail claiming that they are not reconquistas, not separatists, nothing bad...they are just a Hispanic civil rights group!!

As for that "Por la raza, todo, fuera la raz, nada"  thing?

Completely misconstrued and taken out of context!

Do you think any Republican will even  have the stones to ask her about it, or will he be terrified of being called a bigot?

I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows.  -Bart Simpson

 

mb,

"Do you think any Republican will even  have the stones to ask her about it...?"

Of course not. Those gutless wonder republicans are afraid of their own shadows.

-Dave

Rarely Rejected?

Rarely rejected? Give me a break! There were almost 300 vacancies on the different courts because of the opposition of the Democrats to President Bush's nominations! Do any of these phony baloney tv talkers have a brain? Perhaps they have a selective memory? Republicans need to do everything possible to derail this nomination! Don't worry about Princess Diane or Ruddy Robin! They aren't going to give you any slack no matter what! This woman has no regard for the Constitution or the rights of "White minorities!" Pretty soon, we're going to march in the street! When will we be judged by the content of our character rather than the color of our skin? I didn't abuse or misuse any minority, yet I'm having to pay for the misdeeds of others! Excuse me, Ms. Sorta-Of-A-Mayor, YOUR Precious Communist Democrat Party led the way in the mistreatment of minorities, not Conservatives! Its too bad you can no longer find this in history books but I REMEMBER! Anyway, stop this woman at all counts! 

→ Correction Scott

She did not say, "would often reach a better conclusion . . . white male"

She said "would more often reach a better conclusion . . . white male"

The term "more often" along with its other operative "better", are the focus.

I wonder of Tumbler is on his way to DC to rescue Sotomayor?

-Sorry, just a thought I just had.  :-)

-Dave

I will never forgive you--

-- for evoking such horrid memories. But --in tribute to Tumbler--have you ever looke into the brown eyes of Sonia and seen the softness and the kindness there. She is only here to make a living for herself and her family.

---and a living hell for white men who don't know squat!!!!

Abortion might

From the NYT's, "Now, some abortion rights advocates are quietly expressing unease that
Judge Sotomayor may not be a reliable vote to uphold Roe v. Wade..."

http://www.nytimes.c...

If its abortion vs. diversity, abortion will win here

The Abortionistas don't do anything quietly - Sotomayer better get on the train quick, or they'll loudly and publicly skewer her, diversity or not.

And just because it is

And just because it is almost forgone conclusion that this pinhead will make SCOTUS means we dont put up a fight?  We must fight because we are right.  We need to show why she is not qualified to rule impartially over cases that will form law, the law of the land.  We need only look to a few court cases that have caused many problems and headaches.

IMO SCOTUS should be reigned back and the broader powers stripped from them.  They make laws defacto by declaring some laws the congress are null and void by virture of laws in other lands.  If they dont rule by the Constitution then they should be impeached.

Re Put up a fight

Absolutely; if we are to surrender on this because we are likely to lose, we can apply that same flawed logic to all of the Bamster's evil plan. Let's just walk out of Congress and let them have at it.

Until we investigate Sotomayor and question her in the committee, we won't truly know our chances of stopping her. There are rumors that she is weak on 2nd Amendment issues, or even completely unconstitutional, and if so that may be a way to bleed off moderate democratics from bellwether states. One of the keys to the democratic takeover of Congress was their putting up pro-2nd Amendment candidates in flyover states, thus their weakness there.

She may also have a problem with the La Raza connection. If we can demonstrate a connection to the Hispanic-KKK, that could sink Sotomayor, as further evidence of her extremist views and racist positions.

Nice thought, but it won't

Nice thought, but it won't matter.

The Democrats will stick together on this one; unless they find children chained up in her basement, she's in.

I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows.  -Bart Simpson

 

I don't know mb... The

I don't know mb...

The 2nd Amendment thing is a huge issue in this state, Tester and Baucus will be getting calls from their constituents....so is illegal immigration...both of these guys are dems.

I know she will sit and spin all of this during her confirmation hearings with plenty of guidance from Leahy, Shumer and others, like they did with Holder regarding the 2nd Amendment and State Rights...but it is going to be very interesting.

All in all...we all know no matter who it is....they are going to be leftist activists who have disdain for the Constitution, no matter how they try to twist it.

Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart

Ummm, when the MSM begins

Ummm, when the MSM begins to make this kind of bluster there is usually something they don't want you to notice and convince everyone it's a done deal when in fact what they really have is a house of cards.

When Arlen Specter defected to the Dem party, he lost his GOP spot on the judiciary committee.  For ANY judicial nominee to make it out of committee they must have at least ONE Senator from the opposing party vote with the majority, party line votes don't count in this one.  With the turn coat Specter gone, and Sessions taking his place, who will be the one to draw the ire of the GOP?   http://judiciary.sen...

Of Hatch, Cornyn, Grassley, Graham, and Corburn, who will vote to install any radical leftist to the SCOTUS?  Any one of these who do, are done for in the GOP, THAT'S A PROMISE...

ACU ratings for 2008:

Grassley - 76

Coburn - 96

Graham - 82

Cornyn - 79

Hatch - 80

Grassley it seems is the weakest link.  Specter had an ACU rating of 42, you know how he consistently voted - not with the GOP.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.

Thanks for bringing that

Thanks for bringing that up.  I wanted to yesterday, but I didn't have the time to look up who the other Republicans on the committee are.

I know the subject came up when Specter first switched, in an analysis looking at how it might not be the boon to Democrats as first imagined.

I don't know who might fold; whovever most wants to be the next darling of the MSM... the latest "even Republican."

They should have learned from the Democrats and Estrada, and stopped her at the appellate level.  

Now which party is it that fights dirty?  I always forget.....

didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows.  -Bart Simpson

 

Actually, motherbelt, both

Actually, motherbelt, both parties have a stellar history of fighting judicial appointments by any and all means at their disposal.  The GOP was particularly adept at utilizing parliamentary maneuvers such as "blue-slipping" to block Clinton appointees.  Consequently, many never made it out of committee, while others weren't even provided the courtesy of a hearing even though they technically weren't "filibustered". 

Jer

Wasn't it a democrat

Wasn't it a democrat nomination that was blocked from a vote for a whole year? Or was that a repub?

Democrats were blocked, bal...

There were Clinton nominees held up for years.  Richard Paez was finally confirmed four years after his nomination.  But many were never confirmed, nor even allowed a committee hearing, or if so, were denied a floor vote.  Orrin Hatch strictly enforced "blue slipping" under Clinton which allowed either senator from a nominee's home state to put a "hold" on the nomination going forward.  As soon as Bush was elected in 2001, Hatch decided the "blue slip" rule would no longer be necessary.

Jer

That Bal and Jer is the

That Bal and Jer is the point of the rules of the Judiciary Committee, to block anyone too radical in either political direction.  Which is why I made the point that with Specter gone the GOP now is in the catbird seat.  There will be no surprises or double dealing this time around. Grassley's ACU score implies that he is the one the Dems have to convince.  The Dems are quite aware that an ideolog can not be confirmed which is why they and the MSM have begun the propaganda offensive to make any opposition appear as racist. 

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.

With Gingrich and Limbaugh

With Gingrich and Limbaugh having already labeled Sotomayor a "racist" [attacks which Republican Senator John Cornyn has described as "terrible"], it's hardly necessary for the Dems to engage in a propaganda offensive. 

Jer

Um Jer, these guys were

Um Jer, these guys were reacting TO the propaganda that was already being put out about opposing this nomination.   Nice try, but the time line does not support your assertion.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.

Advise Cornyn of same. 

Advise Cornyn of same.  Perhaps he'll issue an apology.

Jer

Hi dscott... I'm pretty

Hi dscott...

I'm pretty sure Kyle is on the Judiciary too...(I also thought Vitter was, must have him mixed up with a different committee) anyway, I think it could very well be Kyl (Az.), Grassley and possibly Hatch that vote with the dems...as far as Graham goes...who knows.

Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart

Grassley not likely to be defeated

Of Hatch, Cornyn, Grassley, Graham, and Corburn, who will vote to install any radical leftist to the SCOTUS?  Any one of these who do, are done for in the GOP, THAT'S A PROMISE... 

As an Iowan, I have to question that.  Grassley is up for re-election next year, and he's darn near invincible here.  He probably won't get any serious opposition in the primaries, and it has been awhile since any Democrat has been more than a speed bump on the road back to Washington.  Note, I'm not saying he should be returned, I'm just saying that it's going to take an awful lot to knock him off in 2010. 

When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.

The foregone conclusion of

The foregone conclusion of all of these talking heads is that her ethnicity immunizes her from any critical examination of her judicial temperament.  Don’t we have the right to hear her views on the constitution instead of all of the endless tripe about her “compelling life story”?  I truly fear for the future of this country as I never have before.

The left might be some help in blocking Sotomayor

Apparently, they fear she may not quite be the infanticide supporter that Obama is:

http://americanpower...

Even the Kos kids are rebelling.

This could be interesting.

-Dave

→ Red Sonia and free speech

It was Red Sonia's panel that ruled a student couldn't run for school government because, on a personal blog, that student called school officials "douchebags"

 

Cool...Red Sonia and free speech

I likewise disagree with the decision, although I understand the rationale.  Interestingly, Sotomayor's ruling is one which traditionally would engender greater--albeit not universal--support among conservatives than liberals.

Jer

→ Busted, Jer

I have to admit I knew that was coming.

I'm actually in agreement with the decision in that it involved a school that has a right to demand a modicum of respect.

The kid's statement was a public one, rather than an expression of private opinion among a few friends.

So whereas it was I who brought up the case, we're still at odds, even though I presented it as a knock at Ms. Sotomayor.

But she's still a card carrying La Raza, Reconquista, racist Radical who hates white firefighters.

BWAHAHAAAAA!!!

 

Cool A~

You crack me up. Jer, how can you possibly be mad at someone like this? He's too funny!^_^

→ Thanks GG

Jer and I have a lot of fun in the sandbox.

 

Cool A~

Just no throwing sand in each other's eyes! ;)

→ Wouldn't dare

Reason I only put my foot in the sandbox tonight is because I let my cat scratch around in it yesterday.

I watched where she went.

 

GG... I learned long ago

GG...

I learned long ago there was no advantage in getting "mad" at Cool, so it's been a long and difficult effort just to try and stay "even".

Jer

→ Right Jer

I'm pretty sure you're not too impressed with Sonia M. Pathetic anyway.

 

Cool... Gotta run, but

Cool...

Gotta run, but I'll tell you what I'm thoroughly unimpressed with:  This whole notion of empathy and life experiences being critical components in the selection of a SCOTUS.  Nonsense.

Jer

→ Later Jer

My sentiments also.

 

Running on

Running on Empathy

Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart

→ bt

Good article.  I really liked;

May a municipal employer disregard the
results of a qualifying examination, which was carefully
constructed to ensure race-neutrality?

Perhaps Sonia M. Pathetic was disgusted the test wasn't race-favorable.

 

CA... Bingo! Doubling down

CA...

Bingo!

Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart

Cool...

It's a close question.  If she had worn a t-shirt to school which said "The superintendant/principal/teachers are douchebags" I would agree with the ruling.  This was a statement of personal opinion on a facebook page.  What if her entry on the website had been "my school principal is being unfair".  Would that be grounds for barring her candidacy?

Jer

→ It would be unfair

"The principal is unfair" is a defensible statement, lacking in disrespect.

"The principal is a douchebag" is indefensible character assassination involving vulgar ridicule.

I would differentiate.

 

prediction

I predict that the liberal la Raza judge will not be confirmed and here's why:  she has a temper and she's not accustomed to being crossed by, in her mind, those rich white guys.  Surely, one of our Representatives or Senators realized this.  All they have to do is set her up with a little praise about her humble beginnings and her rise to power despite living in a racist country like America.  After she's comfortable ask her a few questions that she doesn't want to answer, and when she refuses to answer, press her a little bit.  I predict she'll blow her stack and tell some white guy off.  Things will get real quiet, and then.....game over.  Or, because she's not that bright, she might just say something that she doesn't know is damaging.  Same effect.  I know that we need alittle luck for all this to happen.  I saved the feet of the rabbits we had for supper.  I reshoed the horse and kept the old one.  

Empathy for Fish Too!

Looks like Judge Sonia's empathy extends to fish as well: Sotomayor Ruled Fish Must be Protected from Power Plants Regardless of Cost-Benefit Analysis: http://www.cnsnews.com

Any person that says something must be done regardless of the cost-benefit analysis, is profoundly ignorant and should not be in any position of reponsibility.

Can't you all just feel

Can't you all just feel that knife deep in your ribs being twisted ever so slowly first this way and that?

They've been preparing for this for decades.  Too bad McCarthy and the guys over at the HUAC didn't get more support.  I guess folks back then wanted to be truly 'fair and balanced'.

One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 61% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory (yep...approval for Congress now at 39%...do you believe that!?).

would be "almost impossible" to stop.....

Yeah I believe that's a correct accessment. The all powerful media have decided for all of us that they know what's best for all of us and so, they really won't have it any other way.

The way they see it is, they are the bosses now and thats the way it should be! Really should always have been!

Besides, ever since they saw that poster of El Che, they wanted a beret just like that! And if they could just get a hammer and sickel pin to wear on it, that would be even cooler! Revolution can be a good way to make a fashion statement and retro-commie is in now!

Things are hard to stop when fairness and objectivity are eliminated from the equation.

A familiar tactic...

When members of the Republican Party use fear to prevent the seating of Supreme Court nominee, it is no surprise. This is a commonly used tactic of the GOP. What we have here is simple case of projection, where the accusers are simply assuming that this nominee thinks the same way about race as they do. They're projecting their own paranoid bigotry. If Gingrich does run in 2012, his comments about Sotomayor will come back to haunt him and his party. On the other hand, Limbaugh was just pumping up his ratings.