A joint project tracking federal judicial nominations and courts.
|
|
|
 Editorials and Opinion
|
Editorial: Firefighters and Race (New York Times, 07/02/09)
"If the Monday ruling says anything about Judge Sotomayor, however, it underscores the reasonableness of her views.... Four of the nine justices — including David Souter, whose seat Judge Sotomayor would take — agreed with the result she reached....she actually refused to second-guess the city’s decision — an act of judicial restraint. It was the court’s conservatives, including Chief Justice John Roberts, who voted to overturn the decision of an elected government."
Editorial: Hard case, bad politics: Supreme Court's firefighter ruling muddies issues (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 07/02/09)
"the majority ignored in finding unlawful reverse discrimination. And they did it by making a new rule of law that -- in the words of Justice Ginsburg -- "sets at odds the statute's core directives." The result will be to make life harder for employers seeking to meet the objectives that Congress had sought under the Civil Rights Act.
Those right-wing critics who say this hard case is proof of Judge Sotomayor's legal activism have it exactly wrong. If anything, the precedent-breaking activists here were on the court majority"
A case of judicial activism (San Diego Union-Tribune, 07/01/09)
Ruben Navarrette Jr.: "it's not every day you see five conservative justices — the sort beholden to an ideology that rails against “judicial activists” — morph into Exhibit A. For all the angst about whether Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor would make law from the bench, that's exactly what John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito did here. By contrast, when Sotomayor and two other judges on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling last year supporting New Haven, they were following both the law and legal precedent — specifically, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act barring racial discrimination in employment, and a 1971 Supreme Court decision"
Editorial: Empathy and activism on high court (MetroWest Daily News, 07/01/09)
"Sotomayor's position in Ricci is the opposite of judicial activism. The circuit appeals court deferred to the legislators who wrote the civil service rules, the city officials who made the administrative decision to throw out the case and to circuit court precedents.... The "activist judges," by this measure, are the five Supreme Court justices who used the case to overturn its own precedent and Congress' prescription. In their place, the majority created a new standard ... Rather than overruling the interpretation Sotomayor had applied, they changed the law."
Editorial: Supreme Court ruling a flawed test case (San Francisco Chronicle, 06/30/09)
"it was Sotomayor who was exercising judicial restraint in respecting precedent in her interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A 1971 Supreme Court ruling had established that employer practices could be regarded as discriminatory - even if they appeared neutral on their face - if the results created a "disparate impact" on minority groups.
This latest ruling from the Supreme Court clearly changed the contours of the law."
Editorial: Court turns a blind eye (Philadelphia Inquirer, 06/30/09)
"In attempting to correct alleged "reverse discrimination" against white firefighters, the Supreme Court has made it easier to disregard past bias against minorities in making employment decisions....Yesterday's ruling voided one by a lower court that included Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Justice Anthony Kennedy said, "Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions."
By that reasoning, New Haven shouldn't have tried so hard to promote more than the one black fire captain it has had since 2003."
Editorial: Judicial overreaching: Our view: The Ricci ruling makes Judge Sotomayor look like a model of restraint (Baltimore Sun, 06/30/09)
"The case has been closely watched not only because it deals with the thorny issues of race and affirmative action but also because of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's judgment in favor of the city as an appeals court justice. Now that the high court has reversed her decision in Ricci, conservatives will surely attack her views on race and their potential effect on her fitness to serve on the high court.
Those concerns are misplaced. In fact, her handling of the Ricci case shows that she is far more moderate than the five-member majority that overruled her. Instead of conjuring up a new legal standard, as the court contrived to do, she relied on precedent; and she was unwilling to second-guess the trial court on the facts, whereas the high court not only made new law but applied it to the facts and rendered a summary judgment for the plaintiffs rather than sending the case back to the trial court, where the facts are still in dispute."
Editorial: Act quickly to fill the high court vacancy (Roanoke Times, 06/30/09)
"Monday's Supreme Court reversal of an appeals court decision joined by Judge Sonia Sotomayor will make thin gruel if conservative Republicans hope to dish it up to argue against Senate approval of President Obama's high court nominee. In fact, [it is] imperative that the Senate act quickly on her confirmation. ... the high court signaled that it is set to reverse longstanding precedents limiting corporate campaign spending in the weeks leading up to an election. The court is to hear a second round of arguments on Sept. 9. It should be at full strength by then."
Globe Editorial: A bad test for racial equity (Boston Globe, 06/30/09)
"Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, had ruled for the city as part of a panel on the Second Circuit Court of Appeal. That stance hardly leaves her outside the legal mainstream: Four justices, including the one she is seeking to replace, ruled her way."
Court overturns Sotomayor (Baltimore Sun, 06/29/09)
Editorial preview: "The Supreme Court reversed her decision, but that should have little bearing on our views of Ms. Sotomayor. For one thing, the 5-4 decision reflects the closeness of the issue, and for another, Ms. Sotomayor's earlier ruling simply reflected an adherence to precedent."
Editorial: Court rules that any old ladder will do (Oregonian, 06/29/09)
"Sotomayor was one of the judges who ruled on this case in the lower courts, and so Monday's reversal looks like a rebuke of her reasoning. It wasn't.
In fact, Sotomayor and the other judges on the panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals that unanimously upheld New Haven's decision were simply following the law as it was then understood. Monday's high court ruling was a decision to change that law. The conservative critics gearing up to accuse Sotomayor of "judicial activism" are going to have to find it somewhere else in her record."
The Court Changes the Game (New York Times, 06/29/09)
Linda Greenhouse: "Whatever else the court’s 5-to-4 majority achieved, the result removed the breathlessly awaited case of Ricci v. DeStefano as a substantial issue in the imminent Supreme Court confirmation hearing for Judge Sonia Sotomayor....one thing that is clear from reading the Supreme Court’s 89 pages of opinions in the case is that Judge Sotomayor and her colleagues played by the old rules, and the court changed them. Although “Sotomayor Reversed” was a frequent headline on the posts that spread quickly across the Web, it was actually the Supreme Court itself that shifted course."
Editorial: Court finds smoke, no fire (Berkshire Eagle (MA), 06/29/09)
"we agree with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the minority, that the decision "will not have staying power." As to Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, her role in the case as an appeals court judge speaks well of her respect for judicial precedent -- something that cannot be said for all of the judges in the five-man majority.... Conservative critics claim that Ms. Sotomayor’s decision smacks of judicial activism, but judicial activism entails ignoring precedent, not following it, as the Circuit Court did in this case by supporting the lower court’s ruling. Judicial activism, as routinely practiced by Justice Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who were among the majority Monday, involves establishing policy without regard to past court actions over the years and decades. In fact, by ignoring precedent in Monday’s ruling, we suspect that Justice Ginsburg is correct in her assertion that the blow struck upon minorities by her colleagues’ narrow ruling will be a glancing one."
Sotomayor recognizes judges' limitations (Myrtle Beach Sun News, 06/28/09)
Marcia Kuntz: "Sotomayor is arguing for diversity of backgrounds and experiences on the bench and for humility in judges about their limitations. It should be uncontroversial."
Shades of justice (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 06/28/09)
Joseph Sabino Mistick: "Anyone in the know who denies that judges rely on their personal background and experience when deciding cases is not being straight with you. And anyone who believes that there has not been white justice and other justice has not walked the hallways of our courthouses.
This is why diversity is critical to keeping faith in our judicial system. No ethnic group in America has fully found its rightful place in our society until its members gained access to our law schools and positions in our courts."
Editorial: One More Threat to Clean Water (New York Times, 06/25/09)
"Thanks to the Bush administration’s industry-friendly rulings and a Supreme Court determined to ignore the plain language of the Clean Water Act, America’s waterways are at risk of becoming industrial dumps.... Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg replied, in effect, what about paying deference to the Clean Water Act?
The act, she rightly argued, states plainly that waterways cannot be used for waste disposal. The court’s job, she suggested, is not to take refuge in ambiguities but to reaffirm the clear purpose of the law."
Editorial Observer: White Firefighters, Black Airline Passengers and Judge Sotomayor (New York Times, 06/25/09)
Adam Cohen: "The King and Ricci cases are in many ways mirror images — Judge Sotomayor rejected, for similar reasons, blacks and whites claiming discrimination. She could have accepted the Kings’ argument that the Warsaw Convention should not apply in race discrimination cases. But she deferred to a Supreme Court ruling that interpreted the convention’s reach broadly. In the case of the firefighters, she was similarly guided by legal precedents."
Editorial: Bad ruling for environment; Supreme Court inexplicably allows mining company to dump waste in lake (Las Vegas Sun, 06/25/09)
The U.S. Supreme Court turned its back on the environment Monday when a 6-3 majority gave a gold mining company permission to dump its toxic waste in an Alaskan lake. In a narrow interpretation of the law — so narrow that it defies common sense — ... Trip Van Noppen, president of the environmental advocacy group Earthjustice, put the court’s ruling in proper perspective when he told The New York Times: “If a mining company can turn Lower Slate Lake in Alaska into a lifeless dump, other polluters with solids in their wastewater can potentially do the same to any water body in America.” This case has exposed an alarming loophole in the Clean Water Act that should be closed by Congress immediately.
What Sotomayor has that Palin doesn’t … so far (Atlanta Journal Constitution, 06/25/09)
Jay Bookman: "Sotomayor recognized her shortcomings and worked hard to correct them. She had high goals and she knew she had better prepare herself to achieve them, and she was willing to pay the price."
When Judicial Activism Suits the Right (New York Times, 06/24/09)
Nationla Review senior editor Ramesh Ponnuru Op-Ed: "Many conservatives oppose Judge Sotomayor’s nomination because she does not appear to support originalism ... We argue as well that judges should try to overcome the biases of their backgrounds in the name of self-restraint. But when it comes to the race cases before the Supreme Court, too many conservatives abandon both originalism and judicial restraint.... When President Obama has talked about empathy on the bench, conservatives have responded that, given free rein, it can lead judicial reasoning astray. On race, unfortunately, we are illustrating our own point."
Judging from the heart - or the head (Boston Globe, 06/24/09)
Neal Gabler Op-Ed: "Even before President Obama announced the nomination of Justice Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, he asserted that one of the criteria he would use in his selection was empathy. What the president said he wanted was not a justice who was cold, technical, and inflexible but rather a justice who recognized the effects of his/her decisions on actual people. Immediately and predictably the forces of the right erupted,... the true test of any law, policy, or decision is what it does to real human beings... the ideological debate may be clearer now. It is not between advocates of activist government and advocates of limited government. It is between those who understand and embrace the human dimension of government and those who believe that you can and must somehow trump your emotions and objectively arbitrate life, regardless of whether people suffer or not."
The battle in Appalachia's coalfields: Are the politicians listening? (Facing South, 06/24/09)
Sue Sturgis: "In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that the federal Clean Water Act allows a mining company to dump hundreds of thousands of gallons of toxic mine waste into a lake and render it virtually lifeless -- a ruling that the nonprofit law firm Earthjustice said "has dire implications for other waterways across the country."... It remains uncertain whether Obama and other federal leaders are ready to stand up to politically powerful mining interests and halt the environmental destruction."
SCOTUS to the Clean Water Act: DROP DEAD (Daily Kos, 06/24/09)
"SCOTUS concluded that it was perfectly legal for the Army Corps of Engineers to permit Coeur Alaska Inc., a gold mining company, to dump over 4 million tons of toxic slurry into Lower Slate Lake, near Juneau, thereby obliterating all life in said lake.... The fallout from the Bush Administration's assault on the environment, carried out by their friends and cronies in industry, allowed by neutered regulatory bodies and abetted by the ever-reliable, conservative-packed Supreme Court, continues unabated."
|
|
|
