Barbara Arnwine, executive director of the liberal Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law: "We are shocked by the decision and we will continue our work to preserve the vital protections of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Like Justice Ginsburg, we anticipate that the decision 'will not have staying power.'"
Ed Whelan, on the conservative National Review Online: "Judge Sotomayor thought it appropriate to use an unpublished summary order to dispose of the claims of the New Haven firefighters in Ricci v. DeStefano. Today the Supreme Court issued 93 pages of opinions in the case that Sotomayor acted to bury. Further, although there is a sharp 5-4 divide among the justices, not a single justice thought that Judge Sotomayor acted correctly in granting summary judgment for the City of New Haven."
Nan Aron, president of the liberal Alliance for Justice: “Continuing its assault on our civil rights laws, the five conservative ideologues on the Supreme Court today rejected long-standing law to weaken Title VII protections for traditional victims of discrimination. The majority’s opinion ignores our nation’s history, rejects precedent, overturns the judgment of local government officials and makes it more difficult for employers to take voluntary steps to break down barriers to equal employment.”
Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the conservative American Center for Law and Justice: "This Supreme Court decision - which overturns Judge Sotomayor's legal position - puts the nominee's views on judicial activism front and center at the upcoming confirmation hearings. How does Judge Sotomayor view the Constitution, the rule of law? What's the proper role of the judiciary when it comes to issues like race - is it to set public policy, or uphold the rule of law that is gender and racially neutral? These are important questions that now become even more significant in light of today's decision by the Supreme Court. We look forward to hearing from Judge Sotomayor on this issue and others in the days ahead."
The liberal Center for American Progress: "Although today's decision rolls back 25 years of lower court precedent, the Supreme Court's unique position as the nation's highest Court empowers it to strike down well-established precedents that lower court judges are required to follow. Unfortunately, some on the right will undoubtedly use today's decision as an opportunity to score political points against President Barack Obama and his nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor. These attacks have no merit. Unlike the Supreme Court, Judge Sotomayor was bound by Second Circuit precedent when she voted to reject Frank Ricci's discrimination claim."
Ginsburg dissent demonstrates that no reasoning would have placated her unless the City won - result oriented jurisprudence at its finest. Not only was she not content to do an ad hominem blast at Alioto, who is in a position to defend at least, but in a footnote took a swipe at poor fireman Ricci! No civil rights testing expert he. In her haste to reach a result, she even cited as in in her favor a piece of evidence that manifestly went against her; ie., that the New Haven prima facie case 'percentage' fell below the 80% marker. This emphatically rebukes, not supports, her position.
Posted by: herbert creech jr | June 29, 2009 at 04:43 PM