pageok
pageok
pageok
Sotomayor & Ricci:

Will the Sotomayor nomination influence how the Supreme Court handles the Ricci v. DeStefano case? It's certainly influenced the Obama Administration's view of the case, as their current spin does not quite match the Justice Department's amicus brief. At SCOTUSBlog, Kevin Russell has a very interesting post speculating about how the politics of the nomination might influence the outcome and opinion in Ricci.

AJK:
I guess it's a good thing the arguments took place before the pick was announced.
5.27.2009 1:26pm
Cato The Elder (mail):
The long and short of it - Ricci doesn't spin well, even to faithful Democrats. The politically savvy Left, unlike their academic compatriots, realizes that it's a better strategy to deflect the discussion towards a suspiciously right-sounding "just following the law" rather than attempting to boldly justify the warped result. I feel like Sotomayor's remarks combined with increased scrutiny of this case will generate alot of future heat and light. I don't think Obama is stupid, so I am lead towards two concerning conclusions - either he really is a committed racial Marxist, or more charitably, he is cynically using the nomination as a distraction from his vigorous activities handling our financial, health, and auto industries that are rapidly losing the political lustre held over from the Inauguration.
5.27.2009 1:52pm
Zach (mail) (www):
Similarly, are there any cases in the pipeline that Sotomayor will have to recuse herself from? I assume that'll be the case for Maloney/Rice - is that so and are there others?

As far as Ricci goes, the effect of her nomination on the decision seems like a second order effect following from fear of an affect of the decision on her confirmation. Parties desiring a decision that doesn't avoid criticizing Sotomayor would be best served by laying off for the moment and limiting that concern. I guess some people just can't help themselves when there's blood in the water.
5.27.2009 1:58pm
Ian Argent (www):

I don't think Obama is stupid, so I am lead towards two concerning conclusions - either he really is a committed racial Marxist, or more charitably, he is cynically using the nomination as a distraction from his vigorous activities handling our financial, health, and auto industries that are rapidly losing the political lustre held over from the Inauguration.

The two are not mutually exclusive
5.27.2009 2:08pm
drunkdriver:
Re the nomination and Ricci: even if the Court does reverse, it's unlikely we will see anything to match this utterly classic Warren-Burger encounter.
5.27.2009 2:13pm
Zach (mail) (www):
Cato,

Literally every link on the first page of Google results for racial Marxist leads to racist tirades. The most relevant results link to the Occidental Observer ("original content touching on the themes of white identity, white interests, and the culture of the West"), A.N.U.S. ("we can again begin breeding quality people, and all of our racial problems will be footnotes to that fundamental question"), American Renaissance, Stormfront, and the White America blog.

What's your definition of the term? It doesn't appear to be in common use outside of the white supremacy community.
5.27.2009 2:18pm
Bruce Hayden (mail):
I think that it would be worse for the judge and President Obama if the panel had actually written an opinion. Yes, it looks a bit like they were trying to hide this decision by not writing an opinion, but anything that they might say to back their decision would probably hurt more than merely saying nothing and affirming the lower court.
5.27.2009 2:25pm
J. Aldridge:
I am lead towards two concerning conclusions - either he really is a committed racial Marxist, or more charitably, he is cynically using the nomination as a distraction from his vigorous activities handling our financial, health, and auto industries that are rapidly losing the political lustre held over from the Inauguration.

No, no. He is simply appeasing the Latino vote on behalf of his party. Democrats removed them important immigration quotas in 1965 for very good political reasons.
5.27.2009 2:56pm
ruuffles (mail) (www):

No, no. He is simply appeasing the Latino vote on behalf of his party. Democrats removed them important immigration quotas in 1965 for very good political reasons.

Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986
5.27.2009 3:07pm
MAM:
Read the amicus brief. It's very shrewd in its use of the voluntary deseg case against the conservative majority.
5.27.2009 3:24pm
Nunzio:
It would be funny if the Court reverses Ricci and puts something in there along the lines of how the individual firefighters who studied and worked so hard were standing up to the local government, a fight with which many Americans can empathize.
5.27.2009 3:46pm
Ryan:
A question worth asking is whether Sotamayor's potential nomination influenced her handling of the Ricci case. If she intentionally ducked the issues so as to not have a controversial decision to her name that could be used against her, then I fear she neglected her judicial duty.

If the possibility of a Supreme Court nomination did not influence her decision, then her reasoning (or lack thereof) shows that she may not have the capability to persuasively argue for her interpretation of the law in difficult cases.

Difficult cases make up a much larger percentage of the Supreme Court docket than they do that 2nd Circuit or SDNY docket. She essentially voted present in the Ricci case, maybe that's why Obama likes her.
5.27.2009 3:52pm
Zach (mail) (www):

She essentially voted present in the Ricci case, maybe that's why Obama likes her.

A vast majority of cases before the 2nd Circuit have no published opinion. A large minority of fully briefed cases have no published opinion. Opinions were filed in response to the request to reconsider in banc, and Sotomayor was involved with that. She joined the per curiam that completely endorsed the District opinion. If anything, given a chance to restate her position in a less inflammatory way, she refrained and is now responsible for her uncritical judgment of the District opinion.

It is a nice punchline, though.
5.27.2009 6:46pm
Richard Froude (mail):
Readers might find this Onion-style parody of the Ricci case amusing. It's entitled "Lawyers Advise Fire Departments to Close Until Fires Destroy More Racially Proportionate Numbers of Homes." Scroll down to the April 19, 2009 entry on this blog:

www.optoons.blogspot.com
5.27.2009 6:57pm
geokstr (mail):

ruuffles:

J. Aldridge:

No, no. He is simply appeasing the Latino vote on behalf of his party. Democrats removed them important immigration quotas in 1965 for very good political reasons.

Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986

No, J. Aldridge was quite correct:
"...what is at issue is not immigration in principle but immigration in practice: the fatally flawed 1965 act and the system based on it...

Senator Edward Kennedy (D.-Mass.):

First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same. . . . Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset. . . . Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia. . . . In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.

Every one of Senator Kennedy's assurances has proved false."
The Case against Immigration as We Know It
5.29.2009 9:48pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.