Comments on: The Supreme Court Finishes the Term, and a Honest Services Bribery Case Gets Cert

By: jaxrelief

jaxrelief — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:22:36 +0000

right, she followed estabalished precedent as she swore to do – no problem there. it is curious though (and I am admittedly not totally familiar with Federal Appeals Court procedure which cases get extra attention and which don’t) that when this case came to sotomayor from the district court she didn’t grapple with the constituional issues and gave the district court decision a rubber stamp. there were some important constittional issues at play there and she didn’t even pay them lip-service.

that said, i don’t think this should disqualify her whatsoever from senate confirmation.

By: Plexix

Plexix — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:46:41 +0000

I agree with Oblivion Haha. Title VII of the 1991 Civil Rights Act (which was derived in part from the Griggs v. Duke Power Co. SCOTUS decision) mandates that when there is prima facie evidence of discrimination (i.e, disparate impact) in using a selection instrument, it is incumbent upon the company (or in this case, firefighters dept.) to validate the selection instrument, or seek other valid selection instruments that don’t numerically discriminate. The New Haven, Conn. firefighters dept. decided to do just that…..throw out the results of the test and move towards using an assessment center. The current SCOTUS decided differently, and in doing so created a new rule. How this squares with the disparate impact provision is beyond my meager understanding. I don’t think there is any doubt that this was a judicially activist decision, overturning Congress’ clear desires and ignoring settled legal precedent (i.e. Griggs).

Conservatives who applaud this decision should really take a hard look in the mirror and ask themselves whether they are in favor of the Supreme Court legislating from the bench. In their eagerness to use this decision against Sotomayor, they are embracing that which they proclaim to detest.

By: The Oblivion Haha

The Oblivion Haha — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:46:22 +0000

Yes. It actually is of little interest. She followed the law as set forth in the past by SCOTUS. Then, they changed the law in Ricci. So, you can’t sit there and complain about her following precedent, and then, at the same time, accuse her of being an activist judge.

If anyone’s an activist judge, it’d likely be the Ricci majority.

By: Silence DoGood

Silence DoGood — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 02:43:42 +0000

I guess that it is of little interest that Judge Sonia Sotomayor was a member of the overturned panal. I hope that she doesn’t carry a grudge.

By: Plexix

Plexix — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:21:39 +0000

It seems to me that the US Supreme Court has invalidated the “disparate impact” provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts, 1964 and 1991. Anyone else agree?