REACHING ON RICCI--United States Supreme Court Has Overturned Sotomayor Once Again

RNC Research ^ | June 29, 2009 | Email

[Ooh-Ah]

The United States Supreme Court Has Overturned Sotomayor Once Again In Ricci V. Destefano

SOTOMAYOR HAS NOW HAD SEVEN OF HER DECISIONS GO BEFORE THE HIGH COURT, AND THE COURT AGREED WITH HER REASONING ONLY ONCE 

 

• Ricci v. Destefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008) - Reversed 5-4
• Riverkeeper, Inc. v. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007) -- Reversed 6-3 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg)
• Knight v. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006) -- Upheld, But Reasoning Was Unanimously Faulted
• Dabit v. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005) -- Reversed 8-0
• Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. Mcveigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005) - Upheld 5-4 (Dissenting: Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, Alito)
• Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000) -- Reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer)
• Tasini Vs. New York Times, et al., 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997) -- Reversed 7-2 (Dissenting: Stevens, Breyer) ("Sotomayor's Resume, Record On Notable Cases," www.cnn.com, 5/26/09)

 

SOTOMAYOR'S MENTOR ON COURT DISAGREED WITH RICCI RULING

 

Even Sotomayor's "Mentor" On 2^nd Circuit Court Issued "Blistering Dissent" Of Ricci Ruling. "Now, those differences with her mentor are at the center of the debate over her confirmation because of Judge [Jose] Cabranes's blistering dissent from a ruling by Judge Sotomayor and two others." (David D. Kirkpatrick, "Judge's Mentor: Part Guide, Part Foil," The New York Times, 6/29/09)

 

• Judge Jose Cabranes Said That The Majority "Failed To Grapple With The Questions Of Exceptional Importance Raised In This Appeal." "Writing for the six dissenters, Cabranes said that the majority 'failed to grapple with the questions of exceptional importance raised in this appeal,' and he urged the Supreme Court to do so. He also raised the question of whether the case involved 'an unconstitutional racial quota or set-aside.'" (Stuart Taylor, "New Haven's Injustice Shouldn't Disappear," The National Journal, 12/13/08)

 

• "Cabranes Stressed That Despite The Importance Of The Issues And The Unusually Long And Detailed Briefs, Arguments, And Factual Record, The Three-Judge Panel's 'Perfunctory Disposition' Oddly Contained 'No Reference Whatsoever To The Constitutional Claims At The Core Of This Case.'" (Stuart Taylor, "New Haven's Injustice Shouldn't Disappear," The National Journal, 12/13/08)

 

THE SUPREME COURT HAS CONTINUOUSLY QUESTIONED SOTOMAYOR'S LEGAL INTERPRETATIONS

 

In 2007, The Supreme Court Reversed Sotomayor's Opinion In Riverkeeper, Inc. v. EPA 6-3, Saying That Sotomayor's Interpretation Of An EPA Rule Was Too Narrow. "Environment (Protection of fish at power plants): Sotomayor, writing for a three-judge panel, ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency may not engage in a cost-benefit analysis in implementing a rule that the 'best technology available' must be used to limit the environmental impact of power plants on nearby aquatic life. The case involved power plants that draw water from lakes and rivers for cooling purposes, killing various fish and aquatic organisms in the process. Sotomayor ruled that the 'best technology' regulation did not allow the EPA to weigh the cost of implementing the technology against the overall environmental benefit when issuing its rules. The Supreme Court reversed Sotomayor's ruling in a 6-3 decision, saying that Sotomayor's interpretation of the 'best technology' rule was too narrow. Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg dissented, siding with Sotomayor's position. Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007)" ("Sotomayor's Resume, Record On Notable Cases," www.cnn.com, 5/26/09)

 

In 2006, The Supreme Court Upheld Sotomayor's Ruling In Knight v. Commissioner, But "Unanimously Rejected The Reasoning She Adopted, Saying That Her Approach 'Flies In The Face Of The Statutory Language.'" "Taxes (Deductability of trust fees): In 2006, Sotomayor upheld a lower tax court ruling that certain types of fees paid by a trust are only partly tax deductable. The Supreme Court upheld Sotomayor's decision but unanimously rejected the reasoning she adopted, saying that her approach 'flies in the face of the statutory language.' Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006)" ("Sotomayor's Resume, Record On Notable Cases," www.cnn.com, 5/26/09)

 

In 2005, The Supreme Court Unanimously Overturned Sotomayor's Ruling In Dabit v. Merrill Lynch, Saying That Sotomayor's Position "Could Give Rise To 'Wasteful, Duplicative Litigation.'" "Finance (Rights of investors to sue firms in state court): In a 2005 ruling, Sotomayor overturned a lower court decision and allowed investors to bring certain types of fraud lawsuits against investment firms in state court rather than in federal court. The lower court had agreed with the defendant Merrill Lynch's argument that the suits were invalid because the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 required that such suits be brought only in federal court. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned Sotomayor's ruling in an 8-0 decision, saying that the federal interest in overseeing securities market cases prevails, and that doing otherwise could give rise to 'wasteful, duplicative litigation.' Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005)" ("Sotomayor's Resume, Record On Notable Cases," www.cnn.com, 5/26/09)

 

In 2000, The Supreme Court Overturned Sotomayor's Ruling In Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., Saying That Sotomayor Has Inappropriately Expanded A Previous Decision To Cover The Current Case. "Civil Rights (Right to sue federal government and its agents): Sotomayor, writing for the court in 2000, supported the right of an individual to sue a private corporation working on behalf of the federal government for alleged violations of that individual's constitutional rights. Reversing a lower court decision, Sotomayor found that an existing law, known as 'Bivens,' which allows suits against individuals working for the federal government for constitutional rights violations, could be applied to the case of a former prisoner seeking to sue the private company operating the federal halfway house facility in which he resided. The Supreme Court reversed Sotomayor's ruling in a 5-4 decision, saying that the Bivens law could not be expanded to cover private entities working on behalf of the federal government. Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer dissented, siding with Sotomayor's original ruling. Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000)" ("Sotomayor's Resume, Record On Notable Cases," www.cnn.com, 5/26/09)

 

In 1997, Sotomayor's Ruling As A District Court Judge In Tasini v. New York Times Was Overturned By The Appellate Court; The Supreme Court Upheld The Appellate Court's Reversal Of Sotomayor. "Intellectual Property (Distribution of freelance material): As a district court judge in 1997, Sotomayor heard a case brought by a group of freelance journalists who asserted that various news organizations, including the New York Times, violated copyright laws by reproducing the freelancers' work on electronic databa ses and archives such as 'Lexis/Nexis' without first obtaining their permission. Sotomayor ruled against the freelancers and said that publishers were within their rights as outlined by the 1976 Copyright Act. The appellate court reversed Sotomayor's decision, siding with the freelancers, and the Supreme Court upheld the appellate decision (therefore rejecting Sotomayor's original ruling). Justices Stevens and Breyer dissented, taking Sotomayor's position. Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997)" ("Sotomayor's Resume, Record On Notable Cases," www.cnn.com, 5/26/09)

 

 

PDF Format

A Product Of The RNC Research Department  

[Neoliberalnot]

A defeat for racism and La Raza. The party of race-baiting is taking a few hits these days. Finally!

[bboop]

Here’s what I think. Judges like Sotomayor don’t give a pickle whether or not their judgment is legal or whether or not it will be overturned. They simply make a theoretical decision. It will cost a lot of money to fight it, and that will put the one who lost (but should have won) back some good money. Eventually it will be overturned, but what does that matter? It’s like a lie that is told and re-told, and will go into the continuum of history as true, at least for a bit of time.

[shteebo]

One of the jackasses on the 9th Circuit, with a huge percentage of rulings overturned, more or less admitted that was his strategy. Stephen somebody, I believe was his name. Surely, somebody has the authority to get rid of incompetents like that who are clearly ignoring their oaths.

[Double Tap]

BTTT for later

[rrstar96]

ping

Sotomayor deserves to be told that popular catchphrase from the Eveready battery commercials on Puerto Rican TV back in the 1970s: ¡Qué fallo, líder!

[beelzepug]

“One of the jackasses on the 9th Circuit...”

Reinhart, I believe.

[RikaStrom]

ping

[corlorde]

bookmark