Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> Discriminations

Legal Commentary

: Discriminations

Judging Sotomayor?s Judgment

The National Journal?s Stuart Taylor Jr. has an important post on how the three-judge panel of the Second Circuit, one of whom was Judge Sonia Sotomayor, almost succeeded in hiding the Ricci case from their colleagues, perhaps violating a 2nd Circuit rule in the process.

The reason is that by electing on Feb. 15, 2008, to dispose of the case by a cursory, unsigned summary order, Judges Sotomayor, Rosemary Pooler and Robert Sack avoided circulating the decision in a way likely to bring it to the attention of other 2nd Circuit judges, including the six who later voted to rehear the case.

This may seem like a classic case of inside politics, something that most people don?t know and don?t care to know. But it isn?t. In fact, what might appear to be a minor administrative glitch, or even slight of hand, says far more about Sotomayor?s judgment, or lack of it, than her often-repeated ?wise Latina? slur on white male judges or even her substantive views on the racial discrimination issues raised by Ricci that she did not succeed in suppressing.

Taylor continues:

And if the Ricci case ? which ended up producing one of the Supreme Court's most important race decisions in many years ? had not come to the attention of those six judges, it would have been an unlikely candidate for Supreme Court review. The justices almost never review summary orders, which represent the unanimous judgment of three appellate judges that the case in question presents no important issues. [Emphasis added]

Reasonable people can disagree about the outcome in Ricci, as evidenced by the spirited if misguided (but not unreasonable) dissent of the Court?s four liberals. But I don?t believe any reasonable and honest judge could have looked at the briefs, record, and District Court opinion in Ricci and said with a straight face that it ?presents no important issues,? not even an especially wise Latina.

Again, reasonable people disagree about whether or when it is legitimate to oppose judicial nominees because of disagreement with their past or predicted future decisions, but no senator (or anyone else) should consent to the nomination of any nominee without full confidence in that person?s integrity and ? something that you?d think would be essential in any judge, and especially so in a Supreme Court justice ? honest good judgment.

Full post as published by Discriminations on July 11, 2009 (boomark / email).