The news today is filled with discussions of how the case of Ricci v. DeStefano will affect Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court. I blogged about the subject yesterday, saying, while unlikely, it could impact her confirmation. Both the New York Times and Washington Post today offer analyses that see it similarly. Republicans will trumpet the Ricci case in the coming weeks, but Sotomayor will still sail through her confirmation.
Even though it will be difficult to derail Sotomayor, Republicans jumped on the Ricci ruling quickly:
“Every citizen has a right to have his or her case heard by a judge who will rule on the laws, the facts and the Constitution — and not play favorites,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.), the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee. “This case sharpens our focus on Judge Sotomayor’s troubling speeches and writings, which indicate the opposite belief: that personal experiences and political views should influence a judge’s decision.”
Democrats immediately countered:
In a conference call with reporters, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) — a member of the Judiciary Committee — argued the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ricci v. DeStefano should not be seen as a rebuke of Sotomayor’s judicial temperament, but rather an indication that she is a moderate jurist who was simply following precedent.
Schumer argued that while Republicans have warned “she will be an activist judge, this case clearly shows she won’t. She’ll be a moderate … her whole career on the 2nd Circuit is one of modesty,” Schumer argued.
Conservatives should be frightened of a jurisprudence of doubt. In that sense, Sotomayor’s ruling in Ricci was the correct one. Linda Greenhouse’s op-ed in the New York Times today is a must-read.
Like that decision or hate it, cheer Monday’s ruling or deplore it, one thing that is clear from reading the Supreme Court’s 89 pages of opinions in the case is that Judge Sotomayor and her colleagues played by the old rules, and the court changed them. Although “Sotomayor Reversed” was a frequent headline on the posts that spread quickly across the Web, it was actually the Supreme Court itself that shifted course.
Most people are unlikely to view the case from the perspective of precedence, so it remains to be seen whether this issue will gain traction building opposition to Sotomayor. Conservatives will be making an issue of the case, but this is hardly something we should put energy into when more pressing matters of healthcare and climate change confront us. Few would deny that Ricci and the other firefighters who passed the exam were unfairly discriminated against, but conservatives must pick their battles. Sotomayor did not simply decide her ruling on her personal preferences. Conservatives should not block her confirmation because of personal preferences.