On Sotomayor, Objections Sustained

In a ruling that could have as much impact on the future of Sonia Sotomayor as of affirmative action, the U.S. Supreme Court released its verdict on Ricci v. DeStefano today. The 5-4 decision, which overturns a previous ruling by Sotomayor, should be a devastating blow to the President's first pick for the high court. Five justices sided with the group of 18 Connecticut firefighters, who were denied promotions because of their race.

To determine who was eligible for advancement in New Haven, the city asked its firefighters to take a test. When not enough African-Americans passed it, officials threw out the results--effectively refusing a promotion to the white and Hispanic firefighters who qualified for one. Not surprisingly, the group who was snubbed for advancement sued, arguing that they were victims of reverse discrimination.

On appeal, Judge Sotomayor ruled that the city was justified in tossing the test result. Legal experts were stunned--not only by her panel's verdict, but by how Sotomayor arrived at her conclusion. Using a tiny loophole in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, she "seized on a relatively small part of Title VII and read it in a way that swallows the anti-discrimination focus of the overwhelming bulk of the [statute]," writes Roger Clegg, President of the Center for Equal Opportunity.

The President's nominee not only turned her back on the Civil Rights Act but also on the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees equal protection under the law. To many, this case confirms Sotomayor's penchant for judicial activism. Since her appeals ruling, there has been widespread concern over how she handled the case. Even the Obama Justice Department called on the Court to reverse her panel's decision. Today, the justices did just that, writing in the majority opinion that "[f]ear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions."

In the weeks since her nomination, Sotomayor has proven to be "deeply immersed in identity politics," as Clegg calls it. A judge who distorts the law to fit her own personal prejudices has no place on the nation's highest court. I shudder to think where her politically correct tendencies would lead on matters of abortion or religious freedom. Let's just say that if this case was a test of Sotomayor's eligibility for promotion, she failed.