Confirmation hearing of Sonia Sotomayor

trogdor9

Now that Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearings are underway, I think it's appropriate to make a thread dedicated only to that, rather than continuing to use the Affirmative Action thread.

I usually agree with President Obama. However, I'm hesitant to support Sonia Sotomayor. She consistently comes out in favor of affirmative action, even when it is a case of "reverse racism." Statements and speeches she's made in the past make me very worried. I feel like President Obama could have picked someone much better.

What do you think? Should she be confirmed?

Σπεκωσποκ

No justice would agree with you 100%. I do have some gripes with her, but she's a fine judge and would do well on the Supreme Court. Obama could have done much, MUCH worse.

Kate Monster

No justice would agree with you 100%. I do have some gripes with her, but she's a fine judge and would do well on the Supreme Court. Obama could have done much,MUCHworse.

I think he could have done much better, too. While think she will make an adequate SCJ and she has an impressive resume, from everything I have heard and read from law journals, judicial pundits, etc. her rulings are not overly unique or insightful. I have all the confidence she will preform the job reasonably well, but I doubt she will set the bench on fire (so-to-speak).

lackofcheese

I'm not a U.S. citizen, so I'm not that well informed in these issues, but I read up on Ricci v. DeStefano. It's certainly an interesting case.

It would seem to me that Sotomayor was wrong here, but it was by all means a difficult decision.

Rym

It would seem to me that Sotomayor was wrong here

By definition, the Supreme Court cannot be wrong. It is the definition of the interpretation of the law. The Supreme Court is the true authority, and cannot be directly overridden. It can be Jacksoned or Rooseveldted, but that's another story. There is no excuse for a member of the Supreme Court to back down on a strongly held or righteous opinion. We need some more John Marshalls on the bench. ;^)

lackofcheese

Well, I was using a different definition of "wrong." To clarify, I disagree with Sotomayor on the specifics of this case. However, your point is quite unclear. My best guess is that you're saying that Sotomayor was wrong by definition, because the Supreme Court ruled against her decision, but it shouldn't affect her position if and when she is appointed?

BrutishSaucer

I'm appalled that you don't equate right and wrong with the viewpoint of the American legal system! But I have to agree with your sentiments. It seems it was a stupid political reaction which is the last thing you want your "deciders" to be doing but usually the first thing that makes them viable candidates. Race issues in the US piss me off from almost every angle. I tend to take a Morgan Freeman view on these things. I have a dream, that one day people will be free to discriminate based on sex, race, creed, or for any other ridiculous reason.

Churba

I tend to take aMorgan Freemanview on these things.

You mean, like this?

HungryJoe

Well, I was using a different definition of "wrong." To clarify, I disagree with Sotomayor on the specifics of this case.

What, specifically, are your disagreements?

By definition, the Supreme Court cannot be wrong. Itisthe definition of the interpretation of the law. The Supreme Court is the true authority, and cannot be directly overridden. It can be Jacksoned or Rooseveldted, but that's another story. There is no excuse for a member of the Supreme Court to back down on a strongly held or righteous opinion. We need some more John Marshalls on the bench. ;^)

I'm not meaning to quibble here, but the Court can be wrong and it has reversed itself when it has realized it was wrong. If it truly could never be overridden, we'd still be living under Plessy v. Ferguson.

Jason

You are arguing two different types of wrong. The court can and has been morally wrong, that's true, Joe. But Scott is arguing that by definition the court decides what the law means. He is saying it can never be wrong about what the law means because it is imbued with the highest authority on the matter. If the court says that's how it is, then that's how it is.

HungryJoe

You are arguing two different types of wrong. The court can and has been morally wrong, that's true, Joe. But Scott is arguing that by definition the court decides what the law means. He is saying it can never be wrong about what the law means because it is imbued with the highest authority on the matter. If the court says that's how it is, thenthat's how it is.

I'm not arguing morals at all. The Court didn't decide Plessy based on morality, but an anlysis of the Fourteenth Amendment . . . and that was the law for many years. However, it was wrong. The Court revisited the issue in Brown v. Board of Education and specifically said that it had reached the wrong legal conclusion in Plessy.

Bowers v. Hardwick was another instance in which the Court reversed itself. In that case, the Court found that States should be able to draft legislation against certain sexual acts. That was not based on morality either, but on an analysis of whether such acts were entitled to due process pirivacy considerations. This case was overruled in Lawrence v. Texas.

Hammer v. Dagenhart permitted child labor. The Cpurt specifically stated that its decision didn't have anything to do with morality, but with an analysis of the Commerce Clause. The Court was wrong and reversed itself in United States v. Darby.

lackofcheese

Well, I was using a different definition of "wrong." To clarify, I disagree with Sotomayor on the specifics of this case.

What, specifically, are your disagreements?

There simply wasn't enough justification to discard the test results and deny the candidates their positions. I agree with the Supreme Court - a strong basis in evidence of disparate impact is crucial. Basic statistics tells you that, with small sample sizes, disparate impact can occur merely as the result of random chance. If a strong basis in evidence were not required, there would be hell to pay.

HungryJoe

Well, I was using a different definition of "wrong." To clarify, I disagree with Sotomayor on the specifics of this case.

What, specifically, are your disagreements?

There simply wasn't enough justification to discard the test results and deny the candidates their positions.

The city was trying to comply with Title VII and avoid a disparate racial impact. Title VII is the law of the land. Is the attempt to comply with a statute not justification enough to discard those test results?

Also, that decision rests more with the trial court that granted summary judgment for the city. Judge Sotomayor, along with two other judges in the reviewing court, found that the trial court had appropriately analyzed the summary judgment motion and arrived at the appropriate conclusion regarding summary judgment. That factual issue wasn't before Sotomayor. She was deciding whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgement.

lackofcheese

A disparate impact is only unlawful if it is not job-related, not consistent with business necessity, or if the employer refused to adopt a viable, less-discriminatory alternative.
On the other hand, not certifying the tests due to the statistics would necessarily constitute disparate treatment on the basis of race.

HungryJoe

A disparate impact isonlyunlawful if it is not job-related, not consistent with business necessity, or if the employer refused to adopt a viable, less-discriminatory alternative.
On the other hand, not certifying the tests due to the statistics would necessarily constitute disparate treatment on the basis of race.

I think one of the points was that discarding the test results was, in fact, a less discriminatory alternative. All the test results were discarded, not just the results of the test takers of one particular race. No one was promoted, and a new selection process was planned that would give everyone an equal chance. How is this a problem?

As I said before, you seem to have more of a problem with the trial court than with Sotomayor. Sotomayor (and two other judges, who agreed with her) had to decide whether the trial judge reached the right conclusion in granting summary judgment. How did Sotomoayor err in finding that the trial judge correctly granted summary judgment?

lackofcheese

I think one of the points was that discarding the test results was, in fact, a less discriminatory alternative. All the test results were discarded, not just the results of the test takers of one particular race. No one was promoted, and a new selection process was planned that would give everyone an equal chance. How is this a problem?

Promoting no one would not be a viable alternative in the long term. While the employer should be expected to seek to improve on their testing approach, to discard the current test results without knowing what exactly is wrong with the current test (if anything at all) or having any way to improve on it is just silly. What if it was later found that no significant improvement could be made in the tests? This would just exacerbate the impact on those people previously denied promotions.
Planning a new selection process is commendable, but this could be done without discarding the results.

As I said before, you seem to have more of a problem with the trial court than with Sotomayor. Sotomayor (and two other judges, who agreed with her) had to decide whether the trial judge reached the right conclusion in granting summary judgment. How did Sotomoayor err in finding that the trial judge correctly granted summary judgment?

Verifying an incorrect decision is an incorrect decision, is it not? The outward appearance of the whole situation is that Sotomayor did not give sufficient consideration to the case.

HungryJoe

As I said before, you seem to have more of a problem with the trial court than with Sotomayor. Sotomayor (and two other judges, who agreed with her) had to decide whether the trial judge reached the right conclusion in granting summary judgment. How did Sotomoayor err in finding that the trial judge correctly granted summary judgment?

Verifying an incorrect decision is an incorrect decision, is it not? The outward appearance of the whole situation is that Sotomayor did not give sufficient consideration to the case.

You haven't proven that the decision to grant summary judgment was incorrect. Why do you think the trial judge incorrectly granted summary judgment? Hint: summary judgment doesn't have anything to do with what you feel about the validity of the the test. It's whether the plaintiffs presented a genuine issue of material fact.

lackofcheese

You haven't proven that the decision to grant summary judgment was incorrect. Why do you think the trial judge incorrectly granted summary judgment? Hint: summary judgment doesn't have anything to do with what you feel about the validity of the the test. It's whether the plaintiffs presented a genuine issue of material fact.

A motion for summary judgement is granted in favor of one side or the other. There was indeed no factual issue, but the summary judgement is only valid if the receiving party was entitled to that judgement.

In other words, the summary judgement was incorrect because it was in favor of the wrong side.