Ricci Reactions from Heartland:
The Heartland Institute rounds up reactions to Ricci v. DeStefano, and the case's relevacne to Judge Sotomayor. Comments from Professors Ronald Rotunda and Rick Esenberg, Ilya Shapiro (Cato), Maureen Martin (Senior Senior Fellow for Legal Affairs, Heartland), and me, among others.
It's less amusing to see some of the hackishness in the responses. I don't know if people think they look like more credible legal analysts when they argue that Sotomayor's ruling against the white firefighters is consistent with her characterization of herself as an "affirmative action baby," but they really don't. And while I have no problem with the belief that government should not consider race in any way in making hiring decisions, obviously the case doesn't stand for that proposition and it's disappointing to see more than one of the commentators pretending that it does.
Kopel's charge that the lengthy opinions imply both sides believe Sotomayor was dishonest and unethical is the worst. The opinions were lengthy because they laid out new standards. Yes, the Court of Appeals could have delved into these new issues. But just as well, it is fine if they did nothing more than apply existing precedent. If Kopel is correct, why didn't either side take the Court of Appeals to task?
Likewise, the implication that Sotomayor was repudiated 9-0 because all nine justices disagreed with the Second Circuit's test is nonsense. It was the precedent that was repudiated, not the Court of Appeals.
Captain Renault: "Round up the usual suspects."
I think these kinds of comments are a little silly, but I think the end result was correct.
Anyways, Kennedy changed the test to resolve these kinds of conflicts on Page 25, as far as I can tell. Wouldn't that normally let the circuit court off the hook regardless of the outcome in the SCOTUS?
Also, Warcraft > LOTRO, according to a guy I know. Seriously, I don't play that stuff, really.
Sotomayer wasn't the only judge to rule the way she did, and she is hardly the first judge to have a decision overturned. So I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why this particular case is considered unique, and meaningful.
In other words, does anyone know this Maureen Martin?
"Also, Warcraft > LOTRO, according to a guy I know. Seriously, I don't play that stuff, really."
I'm waiting for the public option so someone else can pay for my powerleveling.
The main complaint, just as the denial of rehearing stated is that the panel did not treat this very serious issue with anything approaching appropriate weight. I do believe that rehearing dissent that the panel wanted to hide this particular case.
Voting present on such a matter just feels like she doesn't take her job seriously enough. A PC order can still have dissents.
That's a reasonable question. Here's my take on it. Sotomayor and this case get attention because her nomination and the SCOTUS decision came at about the same time. She pretty much dismissed the case as unimportant-- just listen to a recording of the hearing. She could have simply sent it back for a trial on the merits. She's also on record as supporting affirmative action.
So am I. So what? Oh, I forgot, that's bad. Too bad you guys lost the elections.
IANAL. Does losing a Presidential election now mean we no longer have a Constitution? So the election of President Obama mans equal protection is no longer the basic law of the land?
No, but it does mean that Obama gets to nominate people to the Supreme Court, last time I checked.
Yes, but your First Aid and Fishing skills are woefully deficient.
Reading Volokh Conspiracy is a nice way to spend time time while undertaking the otherwise boring task of skilling up Fishing.
World of Warcraft > Everything.
Or so I've heard . . .
As did the Bush administration.
When the Dems got smoked in 2004, dissent became the highest form of patriotism. When the GOP got smoked in 2008, "you lost and we won" became the new mantra.
Which, I would guess, accounts for about 95 percent of the comments on this issue.
I have no problems with elite leftists who continue to defend the dissent's reasoning in the Ricci case."
I thought you anti-AA good old days guys favored the "elite" aka the best, most qualified, etc. I suppose you were just kidding. Certainly the self-proclaimed expert Heartland people are not in the "elite" category.
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.