GOPers pounce on New Haven ruling

Posted: Monday, June 29, 2009 4:06 PM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: Congress, Courts, Republicans

From NBC's Ken Strickland
Sen. Jeff Sessions, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, applauded the Supreme Court's New Haven firefighters ruling, while criticizing Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's. She sided with the judges on the lower court whose ruling was overturned today.

"The Supreme Court found that Judge Sotomayor was wrong to allow the city to change its promotion exam after it was given, solely to favor a group because of race," Sessions said in a written statement.

He went on to say judges should rule on the law, the facts, and the Constitution, "and not play favorites. This case sharpens our focus on Judge Sotomayor's troubling speeches and writings, which indicate the opposite belief: that personal experiences and political views should influence a judge's decision."

Video: University of Maryland Law School Prof. Sherrilyn Ifill and author Cliff Sloan debate the Supreme Court's New Haven firefighters decision.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell added, "Not only did Judge Sotomayor misapply the law, but the perfunctory way in which she and her panel dismissed the firefighters' meritorious claims of unfair treatment is particularly troubling ... underscoring my concern that she may have allowed her personal or political agenda to cloud her judgment and affect her ruling."

Similar views were also expressed by other Judiciary Committee Republicans. Sen. Orrin Hatch said, "The Second Circuit should have recognized the serious and unique issues this case raised and given it the thorough treatment it deserved." And Sen. John Cornyn said, "[W]hile the Justices divided on the outcome, all nine Justices were critical of the trial court opinion that Judge Sotomayor endorsed."

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Did you guys have a nice nap??

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL (Sent Monday, June 29, 2009 4:12 PM)

Can some one please explain to me why the Republicants WORK so HARD at staying STUCK on STUPID?

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL (Sent Monday, June 29, 2009 4:14 PM)

Were the other judges that voted against the ruling with sotomayor considered republican or democrat?

GP NW Indiana (Sent Monday, June 29, 2009 4:14 PM)

And it looks like First Read is pounding also; what a slow news day. How many articles have you posted, this was a 5-4 ruling not a 8-1 ruling.

Get a grip and stop trying to make news; you won't find too many people seriously outrage about this decision.

PBrown (Sent Monday, June 29, 2009 4:14 PM)

[Sen. Jeff Sessions: He went on to say judges should rule on the law, the facts, and the Constitution, "and not play favorites.]
--10 points to the reporter to ask him to explain the law that is in question, serious.

[And Sen. John Cornyn said, "[W]hile the Justices divided on the outcome, all nine Justices were critical of the trial court opinion that Judge Sotomayor endorsed."]
--I'd like to hear more about this. If this was true, it seems pertainent to any article involving this case and Sotomayor.

Nicholas: Minnesota (Sent Monday, June 29, 2009 4:18 PM)

Obama is appointing bigots to the SC. The New Haven ruling was a no brainer - discrimination occurred against the white firefighters, but Sotomayor got it very wrong.

Ted Granger, Ohio (Sent Monday, June 29, 2009 4:18 PM)

Truly unbelievable. All of a sudden everyone is up in arms over discrimination. There has been discrimination in this country for generations. And from what I have seen, it still exists - in the GOP. It's an all white party in case no one has noticed.

Discrimination is wrong, black or white. Why is it that these professionals didn't handle this in such a manner? When are they going to grow up and stop using every little thing as a political football?

All this is an opportunity to discredit Judge Sotomayor. It has nothing to do with discrimination. The GOP should be the last people on this earth to talk about this issue. And that goes for Pat Buchanan as well.

Pat, Boston, MA (Sent Monday, June 29, 2009 4:19 PM)

So the other two white male judges that also made the decision, they made it based on HER personal and political agenda? Or are they trying to say she forced them to make the decision? I don't understand that. There were two other judges people.

Julie, Palm Desert, CA (Sent Monday, June 29, 2009 4:20 PM)

This ought to once again bring into light President Obama's emphasis on "empathy" that he wants his judges to have. While that sounds nice in theory, it's a bad and inconsistent way to judge. Empathy for one side can be unfairness to another. That unfairness results in the complete opposite of the empathy that was intended in the first place. Wanting to create opportunities for blacks and minorities is a good goal. But unfairly ripping off good white candidates (who sacrificed money and time to prepare) to reach your goal of empathy is bad policy and leads to unstable precendents. What the Senate needs to know before voting on Ms. Sotomayor is just how deeply ingrained into her judicial philosophy is this "empathy".

Empathy does NOT equal fairness (Sent Monday, June 29, 2009 4:20 PM)

One wonders what Justice Ginsburg was thinking in writing for the minority of the SC on the ruling. Reading through it, it's next to incoherent.

Steve Welsh, Little Rock Arkansas (Sent Monday, June 29, 2009 4:21 PM)

It was a 5 t0 4 decision. Four justices sided with the lower court and Sotomayor. The ruling was not a 9 to 0 ruling, so GOP please tune it down. Do not further erode your credibility, your party is already skating on tin ice

Ben Purser, Royal Oak, MI (Sent Monday, June 29, 2009 4:21 PM)

Another brick in the wall showing Sotomayor is way too over her head thinking she belongs on the Supreme Court. But her nominiation will go through, just like the Crap and Trade legislation, the more then trillion dollars for health care, and immigration amnesty.

Pulse of America (Sent Monday, June 29, 2009 4:23 PM)

I believe that the Supreme Court decided the fire fighter case correctly. People have mention wait until the whites are a minority. Well when that occurs the decision will still be right. It is not about the majority control over the hiring process. It is about fair employment practices. If the test where changed or throw out because, the test results did not provide the preferred selection outcome, then it does not manner if the people denied promotions are a majority or minority race. In the following statement, whites are the minority race. Therefore, if no whites had done well on the test and the test results nullified because no whites graded high enough for promotion, then that would be discrimination against the majority race denied promotions. The decision allows for equal protections under the law, regardless of minority status. As the saying goes, what if the shoe was on the other foot?

TEC-Spring-TX (Sent Monday, June 29, 2009 4:24 PM)

Of the 12 jurors involved at the higher level, 7 came out on the side of caution with regards to Article II of Civil Rights Act.

5 are legislating from the bench in a clear attempt to overturn affirmative action - or at the MINIMUM trivialize affirmative action concerns. I have read the 34 page ruling, Scalia's 3 page concurrence, Alito's 13 page concurrence and Ginsberg's 39 page dissent. I get that many are too lazy to do that; but even the 5 who overturned specifically DID NOT make judgment on the specific issue:

Petitioners are entitled to summary judgment on theirTitle VII claim, and we therefore need not decide the underlying constitutional question. The judgment of theCourt of Appeals is reversed, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Lazy, indeed.

Clara Kansas City, MO (Sent Monday, June 29, 2009 4:24 PM)

All this, all this to get a hispanic on the bench. This is the best that can be offered?

S. Mosley, FLD (Sent Monday, June 29, 2009 4:25 PM)

This changes nothing for the Generally Obsolete and Pathetic party. Sotomayor's confirmation is pretty much a done deal, and all of their stomping and pouting is just theater for the idiot base that still votes for them. What is it, less than 20% of the country now?

But keep on stomping, GOPhers. You've already alienated Blacks, Hispanics, Gays, Women, and one-armed midgets. Keep it up and you'll be down to begging trained monkeys for votes(real ones, not the ones already voting for you).

http://jawillie.blog.com

jawillie Philadelphia, PA (Sent Monday, June 29, 2009 4:26 PM)

Sen. Jeff Sessions: 'I used to think the Kaln was OK until I found out some of them smoked marijuana'

Sen. Jeff Sessions: 'Be careful how you speak to white people' to a black attorney (it was 'just a joke')

Sen. Jeff Sessions called another lawyer a 'traitor to his race' for working with the NAACP

You've built a GREAT Track record Sen. Sessions !!
I WANT TO HEAR YOUR OPINIONS !!!

They're so relevant !!!

MSierra, SF (Sent Monday, June 29, 2009 4:26 PM)

We could have predicted the Republican response to the Court's decision--not that any of them have actually read it. Obviously 4 members of the Supreme Court agreed with Ms. Sotomayor in addition to the judges on her panel and the circuit judges--let's not make this seem as if she is all alone in her opinion. Good luck to the Republicans in courting the Hispanic vote.

Steeler Fan Pittsburgh, PA (Sent Monday, June 29, 2009 4:27 PM)

Empathy does NOT equal fairness (Sent Monday, June 29, 2009 4:20 PM)

Ahh yes; but does the expension of funds unfairly tip the hand of the testors? Because, it shouldn't be required that you invest capital to prepare for a test. AND the test HAD changed, it's not like this test was the standard bearer for decades, this was it's first use out of the gets and it got overly skewed results. So how can we all speak so knowledgeably of its efficacy?

Clara Kansas City, MO (Sent Monday, June 29, 2009 4:28 PM)

By any definition in a color blind world, discrimination occurred against the non minority firefighters. But yet the liberals of the country continue the drumbeat for more and more advantages for minorities using Affirmitive Action as their weapon of choice. We have an African-American President for heavens-sake, how much longer does America have to give advanatages to people that no longer require them?

Nancy Pendergrass, Boston (Sent Monday, June 29, 2009 4:29 PM)

Does no one seem to notice that Sotomayor would not have changed this vote one little bit...still would have been 5-4 with Sotomayor voting as Souter did. Talk about much ado about nothing.

Republicans need to elect a president if they want someone who will vote on their end of the spectrum...why is that so hard to understand?

James, Texas (Sent Monday, June 29, 2009 4:29 PM)

Another hack job pick from Obummer.

Keep the Change (Sent Monday, June 29, 2009 4:31 PM)

From twocanpete.blogspot.com:

'now-Senator Jeff Sessions had an interesting view on just when the KKK went too far.

Sessions told colleagues that he "'used to think they [the Klan] were OK' until he found out some of them were 'pot smokers.'"

(from talkingpointsmemo.com)

twocanpete says: So let me get this straight Senator Sessions: Lynchings, church bombings, and killing black folks; good.
Smoking weed; bad....'

Uhhhh, yeah !!
As long as you DON'T DISCRIMINATE !!
(or 'play favorites')

MSierra, SF (Sent Monday, June 29, 2009 4:32 PM)

No duh from the Repuke party. I could have nailed that one! The Repukes have become the Anti to American. They don't need any more time on this! They already KNOW exactly how they are going to vote on her. I will guess the majority of not all will oppose her nomination!

Terry, Disabled Vet, Des Moines, IA (Sent Monday, June 29, 2009 4:35 PM)

I think the supreme court decided the case correctly, but I also believe the case would have been presented to the supreme court regardless of how the lower courts ruled. Bottom line is New Haven never proved the test biased toward or against any racial group. Having Equal rights does not mean the laws apply more to one group than another group. The laws should apply equally and fairly to all citizens.

TEC-Spring-TX (Sent Monday, June 29, 2009 4:38 PM)

This is just spin...The repubs are making much to do about nothing that pertains to her getting confirmed. They are only trying to distract the attention away from the Sanford scandal.

Anita, Birmingham, Alabama (Sent Monday, June 29, 2009 4:39 PM)

PBrown - And it looks like First Read is pounding also; what a slow news day.

.....

Slow is right. Honduras going under? No one cares. Sure, Obama is "Deeply concerned", but he's that way about most everything. Obama says it wasn't a "legal coup"? I guess none of them are, maybe someone should tell him that, like Hillary for example. Except, who is going to tell Hillary?

Change of State (Sent Monday, June 29, 2009 4:39 PM)

If Sotomayor got it "very wrong," then so did two other appeals court justices and four justices of the Supreme Court, all of them white, as far as I know. Right now, that's 7-5 among appellate judges ... in FAVOR of Sotomayor's position. Take out the 2 minorities, and it's still 6-4.

Just remember ... the Supreme Court isn't final because it's right. It's only right because it's final. Many of the same folks who are crowing about this surely believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. How can that be? I guess the Supreme Court CAN make mistakes, although I'm not entirely sure one was necessarily made here.

Anna Molly (Sent Monday, June 29, 2009 4:39 PM)

The GOP crticism is ridiculous. 4 of the 9 (including the one she will replace still agreed with her ruling). She was following the precedent. The conservative justices just changed the precedent. That said (even a liberal like me) agrees with their ruling. New Haven shouldn't have thrown the test results out in the knee jerk way that they did. It may be that the test is discriminatory. Or it may be that a test isn't the best or only criteria that should be used in deciding promotions. (Book smarts vs. On the job experience) But they should have lived with the criteria that they set upfront for this round of promotions and then reevaluated. They should have had to find evidence that the test was discriminatory before throwing out the results. They didn't do so because they were afraid of being sued. This new precendent set by the SC will give a legal backing for employers to ensure they are being fair to all applicants (but it does not give cover to discriminate). This is the right approach. I believe affirmative action should level the playing field (no more). It isn't clear if these test results are due to unfair (discriminatory) questions or was a fair assessment of the individuals knowledge and effort. Neither white or black workers should be discriminated against, and in this case, I do believe the New Haven department felt that reverse discrimation was the safer route for them legally.

Kelly (from Pittsburgh) (Sent Monday, June 29, 2009 4:45 PM)

Was Sessions wearing his white hat when he gave his opinion on discrimination? If anyone knows about this subject it is Jeff Sessions.

Any white male who cries "reverse discrimination" in this country should have to PROVE that they have sometime in the past, supported the cause of a minority or woman before they are granted legitimacy. After all the years of persecution against people of color in this country, it is preposterous for a white person to so sandbag another minority.

Think, people - how much we all have to gain if this scourge known as racism would die a timely death...

Tim Stocken, Highland Lakes, NJ (Sent Monday, June 29, 2009 4:47 PM)

The real news is how close the vote was (5-4)... don't you think.

Clearly it could have gone the other way. There must be details in the arguments and the law suit that the general public are unaware of.

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio (Sent Monday, June 29, 2009 4:55 PM)

Folks another GOPer Red Herring, This gets so old, almost as old as the GOPer pale guys. lol

Well said Julie, Palm Desert
"So the other two white male judges that also made the decision, they made it based on HER personal and political agenda?"

The argument that I have heard on this was that Judge Sotomayor took, along with the other Judges a "conservation" position with respect to precedent.

Note also that the SCOTUS ruling was 5-4 notn 8-1.

Get some new material, GOPers!

Ed, FW, TX (Sent Monday, June 29, 2009 4:56 PM)

I am appalled by these senators. This was not a decision made by Sotomayor alone - there were other judges that voted this way. Also the SC was 5-4 - it was not an overwhelming vote on one side or other. And bottom line - these are their "judgments" on the law. Nothing is really black or white (not a pun please)when it comes to the law. It's all interpretations by individuals. So spare me all of this crap.

SAM, USA (Sent Monday, June 29, 2009 4:56 PM)

Bad choices all the way around for Obama.
No character here. No ethics. Just an empty head.

Peter Percival Patterson (Sent Monday, June 29, 2009 5:02 PM)

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=1982071