Supreme Court Overturns Sotomayor Ruling: Reverse Discrimination

Earlier today, the Supreme Court overruled one of the few significant rulings made by Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor. She ruled in favor of the New Haven fire department’s decision to throw out examination scores for promotion purposes because the scores were unfairly skewed in the favor of white candidates.

Correcting Sotomayor’s ruling, the majority decision argued that although the white candidates performed better than minority groups, there was no intentional discrimination. Similarly, the New Haven fire department was discriminating against the white candidates by throwing out their scores.

New Haven officials who threw out the test could not point out any specific flaws with the test other than the white candidates performed better than minorities.

The Supreme Court corrected this flawed judgment by Sotomayor and the lower courts with which she agreed.

Although this is unlikely to change Sotomayor’s Senatorial approval to The Bench, it was an important ruling for employers who should not have to make promotions based on the fear of litigation from employees.

For Sotomayor, it is yet another warning sign about her plans to use the court as a policy-making tool.

Comments

[scott huminski]

SOTOMAYOR IGNORANT OF THE LAW

Sotomayor flunks on getting the most basic principle of appellate law wrong – the Standard of Review.

In Huminski v. Haverkoch, 11/5/04, 03-7036 2d. Cir., Sotomayor reveals an ignorance of the law by failing to apply the correct standard of review to an important civil rights case. She found appellate review was for reversible error when the correct standard of review for such a case (summary judgment) is De Novo.

A simple google on, “standard of review for summary judgment de novo” supplies tens of authorities on the issue. I guess Sotomayor would rather be wrong than google on such a rudimentary issue. She also could have assigned her flock of law clerks to research the issue. Further, on a motion for rehearing specifically pointing out her error she did not act and correct it.

Here is the link to the Sotomayor summary order from this case in which she presided over.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/cb42154f-30e6-47ee-ae7c-d8e4c3acc2e5/1/doc/03-7036_so.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/cb42154f-30e6-47ee-ae7c-d8e4c3acc2e5/1/hilite/

See also,
http://www.judgewatch.org/web-pages/cja-members-efforts/huminski-scott.htm

Where the order states “For the Court”, it refers to Sotomayor and the 2 other judges on the case.

See a different case of mine, Huminski v. Corsones, No. 02-6201 (2d Cir. 10/07/2004) (“We review a district court's grant or denial of summary judgment de novo.”)

Empathy, not much empathy for this wrongly convicted and incarcerated citizen,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/nyregion/10dna.html?_r=1&emc=eta1
It appears she gave this imprisoned man the same bogus one page opinion that I got.

-- Scott Huminski
(202) 239-1252