Firefighter will be witness against Sotomayor

[Lone_Star_Dem]

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Republicans announced Thursday that they plan to call a white firefighter to testify against Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor during her Senate confirmation hearings that open Monday. New Haven, Conn. firefighter Frank Ricci's reverse discrimination claim was rejected by Sotomayor.

GOP plans to showcase Ricci during the Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings indicate her critics will make racial bias a central theme of the hearings on President Barack Obama's nominee for the high court, who would be the first Hispanic to serve there.

Sotomayor was part of an appellate court panel that rejected Ricci's challenge to New Haven's decision to scrap the results of a promotion test because too few minorities scored highly enough to qualify. The Supreme Court reversed the ruling last week. Republicans point to Sotomayor's decision as evidence that she might let her personal and political views — particularly a belief in racial preferences for minorities — taint her decisions.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

Democrats will use the hearings to counter that charge and introduce Sotomayor as a mainstream judge with fans across the ideological spectrum. Among their 15 witnesses are people who know her best, including Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, her first boss, as well as several figures with at least some claim to GOP credentials, including New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg — who ran as a Republican but switched his affiliation to independent in 2007 — former FBI Director Louis Freeh, first named to a federal judgeship by former President George H. W. Bush, and Michael J. Garcia, a former Manhattan U.S. attorney appointed by then-President George W. Bush.

Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31834765/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

[MercutioATC]

1. He's somebody who was allegedly harmed by a bad ruling she made.

It's a valid gripe about her record, but his actual appearance is theatrics.

[tomhayes]

4. No - it's to show the white man getting SCREWED by the libs

She made no ruling on the facts in the case - except that the lower court had relied upon and applied the law as it was interpreted for the last 30 years.

The Conservative majority on the court created new - and vague - interpretation law because they felt the white men (and two Hispanics) were wronged. (Like when they forgot the words "Well regulated militia" in the second amendment?)

This is why Obama should nominate someone as far to the left as Scalia or Thomas are on the right - because whoever they nominate will be pilloried by the right.

He's got a gripe with the established system - the system the Supreme Court changed by legislating from the bench on.

This is purely politics.

[lindisfarne]

5. "white man"? Many African-Americans, Nat. Am, hispanics (& others) have caucasian ancestry.n/t

[tomhayes]

9. I said white man and I mean white man

That's the Republican bas who feels unfairly treated in America - and that's what they'll parade. It'll be about "reverse racism" plain and simple. Emphasis on SIMPLE.

[lindisfarne]

10. So are Italians "white men"? Spaniards? Or are you restricting it to the socialistic Scandinavians?

Somehow, your ignorance is shining through. What about Greeks? British (they have socialistic health care, keep in mind)? Irish? Iranians?

[tomhayes]

11. I'm talking WHITE MEN

Think of how Rush Limbaugh would use the term - and that's who'll you see.

[lindisfarne]

13. Referring to Limbaugh is hardly helpful at this site, so define your term. n/t

[POAS]

15. Maybe this will help clear it up.

[tomhayes]

16. Ding ding ding

We have a winner.

[POAS]

17. ;)

:evilgrin:

[POAS]

24. Where did your debater go?

[JonLP24]

26. You forgot to add Chris Rock, he's 20% white

:sarcasm:

I don't understand what point the other poster was making. When someone says white man I think of myself and anyone with similar skin tone.

He is right about one thing. No one is 100% of anything if they got there DNA checked for that purpose.

[POAS]

27. I agree with the 100% point but

still cannot fathom what point was trying to made. Began to sound like some pseudo-intellectual crap that was about to break out into a sappy version of "We Are The World".

[JonLP24]

28. My point or the other poster's point?

Sorry for being confused but if you were asking me about my point I was just trying to point out how ridiculous the other poster was being. I probably made it in a bad way.

If it was the other poster's point you were asking I completely agree with you that I can't fathom what point the other poster was trying to make.

I haven't had any coffee yet so my reading comprehension skills are down.

[POAS]

29. Just starting on my first cup of java also

I was talking about the other poster...sorry for the confusion...I was agreeing with you....

[JonLP24]

30. Thanks for responding

I figured that much I just wasn't 100% sure which prompted me to ask.

[lifesbeautifulmagic]

6. I wish the Dems had fought like this

when Alito and Roberts were up.

Not that I agree with the reasoning behind having him testify, just wishing the Dems had opposed with the same ferocity of spirit.

[strategery blunder]

2. Oh please.

1. The SCOTUS generally only takes controversial or circuit-split cases, and thus reverses appellate decisions about half the time. It's nothing unusual.
2. Sotomayor followed established case law, but the SCOTUS declined to follow it and made new case law instead. There is NO WAY for an appellate judge to anticipate that--and had Sotomayor made a ruling along the lines of what SCOTUS decided, she could have been criticized for not following precedent. The SCOTUS' decision upended disparate impact theory which *had* been well established in case law.

[JDPriestly]

12. strategery blunder, You are right. Precisely. Sotomayor applied

existing law correctly. That was her job. She could have gone beyond her mandate, but her choice to follow existing law was correct.

[CBHagman]

21. Thanks for mentioning that, and for the curious...

...here's a website with an overview of the case. I think the 'cans are assuming people can't be bothered to to anything but drool like good little Pavlovian dogs every time someone screams, "Reverse discrimination!"

http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Ricci%2C_et_al._v._DeStefano%2C_et_al.

[rucky]

3. Joe the Firefighter

great

[Wizard777]

7. Ha! The jokes on them. She's a wise latina woman that can make better decision on discrimination -

cases than that white guy. :wow: Ooooh yeah. Well then, I can hardly wait until her unfortunate choice of words bear the weight of Supreme Law. :wow: Oooooo yeah. I guess we'll have to reduce her blatant racism to one question that requires little or no thought. Judge Sotomayor, will you allow black kids to swim in your pool? Just say yes damn it! Not one word more or less! Just say yes and that's it!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

23. I hear the NRA is quite happy with her selection.

[bemildred]

8. This is so dumb, in so many ways, you just don't know where to start.

But as a Democrat, I have to welcome it, in the sense that it will prevent any re-birth of the Republican party.

[customerserviceguy]

19. Don't bet on that

President Obama sold himself to flyover-country America on the idea that he wasn't going to "take" anything away from them. That was the basis of his "I'm not going to raise taxes on any family making less than $250,000" pledge.

During a recession with either a jobless recovery, or a jobless continuation of that recession, flyover-country America is starting to worry about keeping employment. Seeing a SCOTUS nominee who can be cast as someone who would take their jobs away to rectify a 150 year old wrong would be one of the things that might cause them to feel threatened.

A Democratic victory in 2012 is not a sure thing by any means.

[boppers]

20. 150 year old wrong? 1859?

My school system was desegregated in 1979. 30 years ago.

Racism is still alive and well in america, as your post implies.

"Dey took ur jobs!"

[customerserviceguy]

31. I'm just talking about how the Repukes are going to sell it

and in most of flyover country, there were no schools to desegregate. I've lived in the rural part of white America where the only black people you saw were on TV, or if you ventured to the "big city". I've lived in suburban America where thirty and forty years ago, people fled from the inner cities.

I can sure tell you which of those two Americas is most prejudiced, knows it, and is not terribly ashamed about it.

[bemildred]

22. Anybody that thinks alienating Latinos and Blacks with divisive racial politics

is a good political strategy in the USA in 2009 has their head buried in their ass. Flyover-country will keep getting fucked until they buy themselves a clue about who really cares about their welfare, and who does not.

[customerserviceguy]

32. It's worked for them before

and in the coming immigration debate, I guarantee it will be tried again. You cannot imagine the ways that the Repukes will use the Sotomayor confirmation hearings, not as a way to keep her off the Supreme Court, but as a way to paint Democratic Senators as being out of touch with flyover-country values.

I'm not saying they will be right, or even smart to do this, but they will try, and I predict it will get ugly.

[high density]

14. America's Top Supreme Court Nominee

Text your vote now, standard messaging rates apply.

[POAS]

18. Followed up by "Funniest Home Videos" n/t

[RFKHumphreyObama]

25. Nothing like stirring up racial tensions for cheap political stunts

I hope the GOP pays dearly for this