Tuesday, June 30, 2009

"Short of writing 'get whitey,' it's difficult to imagine how Judge Sotomayor could have fouled up the Ricci case any more than she did."

The above quote is from John at Powerlineblog. In his post, he counts the ways Sotomayor fouled up:
Fourth, even the dissenting Justices blew off the reasoning of Sotomayor's panel in a footnote, and fashioned their own, different standard for deciding the case.

Fifth, the dissenting Justices made it clear they would have disposed of the case differently than the way Sotomayor's panel disposed of it. The [Sotomayor] panel affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the City of New Haven, which would have ended the matter. The [SCOTUS] dissenters, in the panel's position, would have remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings under the different standard for deciding the matter that it articulated.
Thus we see that the 5 SCOTUS Justices in the majority disagreed with Sotomayor, yet the 4 SCOTUS Justices in the minority also believed Sotomayor botched Ricci in a big way. Ginsburg hints that New Haven likely would have won the case if Sotomayor had properly remanded the case to the District Court.

It's being written today, especially in MSM, that the 5-4 SCOTUS verdict vindicates Sotomayor. Horse manure. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against New Haven. The Court ruled 9-0 against Sonia Sotomayor.

John at Powerline concludes:
Judge Sotomayor's work in Ricci should raise serious questions about either her competence or her capacity to handle difficult civil rights cases (essentially the only kind that make it to the Supreme Court) impartially.

At neo-neocon, Occam's Beard defends his assertion that Sotomayor is incompetent:
Sotomayor is incompetent because she issued an unsubstantiated summary judgment - reserved for situations wherein no reasonable jury, properly applying the law, could find for the non-moving party. In essence, a summary judgment is saying that there is no issue of law, that no reasonable group of people could possibly disagree. It is a statement, in essence, that this one is a no-brainer.

The Supreme Court, no less, begged to differ with her.

Getting an appellate ruling reversed on appeal to the Supreme Court is one thing, but getting a summary judgment reversed is outrageous. It is, on its face, a statement that the appellate court was incompetent.

No comments: