In this section Judge Sotomayor denies the interpretation of her statements as presented by Sessions, and further states that her underlying point was that equally wise and richly experienced people - just might disagree.
First a quick Refresher on exactly who Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III really is.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
In 1986 Jeff Sessions failed in his bid to become a Federal Judge himself because he thought the NAACP - the organization formed to fight Lynchings - was a "Anti-American/Communist" association. He also called a fellow White Lawyer who defended Black people a "Traitor to his Race" - and yet he presumes to Judge the bias of Judge Sotomayor?
Like. Wow!
Now a question, as Litigator Mom posted today - who said this?
"Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown."
Who said this?
Judge Sonia Sotomayor in the statements immediately following her comments where she HOPED a "Wise Latina with the wealth of experience" would come to better conclusion on a discrimination case than (a Wise someone) without that experience. Clearly she was saying she doubted that this was a foregone conclusion. And in the hearings today she underscore this meaning to her original comments.
She did NOT say that she couldn't see a case from the perspective of people whose experience different from her own, rather she truthfully stated the difficulty in seeing and fully appreciating circumstances of others that our outside our own experience and that "neutrality and fairness" is not our natural state, instead it is some we must work hard to achieve and maintain. In fact, I think Sessions seems to embody exactly what he's attacking since he seems completely incapable of reading and understand all of Sotomayor's statement simply because it's a perspective that is so far different than his own experience.
ie: "Boy. Better Watch Yourself. Traitor to your Race. The Klan is not to so bad... except for The Pot!"
In this section Beauregard challenges Sotomayor on the Ricci Case.
Sotomayor correctly points out that she didn't make this decision on her own, she was part of a panel - and that other appelate courts (the 6th Circuit) have come to similar conclusions on similar cases based on the standing precedent on the Disparate Impact standard under Title VI.
Disparate Impact: Even where an employer is not motivated by discriminatory intent, Title VII prohibits an the employer from using a facially neutral employment practice that has an unjustified adverse impact on members of a protected class.
That is the Law. It has been the Law for 40 years.
The question in the Ricci case was whether or not the City was Justified in scraping the test and starting over in the likelihood of a potential Disparate Impact Suit - the Supreme Court has now determined and set a New Standard which says that in similar cases the employer would need to determine that they were likely to Lose a Disparate Impact Suit, not simply that one is likely to be filed.
I personally don't have a problem the new standard, but it is unreasonable to blame Sotomayor and the 2nd Circuit for following existing precedent, rather than changing the standard in an Activist Way.
Sotomayor followed the Law, The Robert's Court -Changed it.
Yet again, Jeffro Fails.
Vyan
2 comments:
loose != lose
Got it.
Post a Comment