Comments on: Conservatives Find Political Fodder in Firefighter Decision http://washingtonindependent.com/49140/conservatives-find-political-fodder-in-firefighter-decision National News in Context Thu, 26 Nov 2009 04:30:43 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Name http://washingtonindependent.com/49140/conservatives-find-political-fodder-in-firefighter-decision/comment-page-1#comment-51569 Name Fri, 24 Jul 2009 20:47:33 +0000 http://washingtonindependent.com/?p=49140#comment-51569 This article is in error. Justice Ginsburg's dissent in no way "specifically wrote that she would have affirmed the lower court rulings in favor of the City of New Haven." In fact, nowhere in the dissent does it say that it would have affirmed the Second Circuit's upholding of summary judgment in favor of New Haven. Additionally, it cannot be forgotten that the Ricci plaintiffs also raised Equal Protection claims. If Ginsburg's opinion, sotto voce, was really an affirmance of Sotomayor, those claims would have had to be dealt with by Ginsburg. They were not. Hence, it's simply wrong to state that Ginsburg's opinion would have affirmed the lower court rulings.<br><br>Don't worry, Ms. Eviatar, the learned judge Sotomayor made the same error. In her response to Senator Kyl, she stated: "I don't believe that's how I read the dissent. It may have to speak for itself, but I—Justice Ginsburg took the position that the 2nd Circuit's panel opinion should be affirmed; and she took it by saying that no matter how you looked at this case, it should be affirmed. And so I don't believe that that was my conclusion reading the dissent, but obviously it will speak for itself."<br><br>Justice Ginsburg did not that that position. She would have had to deal with the Equal Protection claims to get there. But she didn't. People can debate about Sotomayor, but it is interesting that a federal judge sitting on the bench for 17 years would make such a mistake. <br><br>Ms. Eviatar should correct the article. This article is in error. Justice Ginsburg's dissent in no way “specifically wrote that she would have affirmed the lower court rulings in favor of the City of New Haven.” In fact, nowhere in the dissent does it say that it would have affirmed the Second Circuit's upholding of summary judgment in favor of New Haven. Additionally, it cannot be forgotten that the Ricci plaintiffs also raised Equal Protection claims. If Ginsburg's opinion, sotto voce, was really an affirmance of Sotomayor, those claims would have had to be dealt with by Ginsburg. They were not. Hence, it's simply wrong to state that Ginsburg's opinion would have affirmed the lower court rulings.

Don't worry, Ms. Eviatar, the learned judge Sotomayor made the same error. In her response to Senator Kyl, she stated: “I don't believe that's how I read the dissent. It may have to speak for itself, but I—Justice Ginsburg took the position that the 2nd Circuit's panel opinion should be affirmed; and she took it by saying that no matter how you looked at this case, it should be affirmed. And so I don't believe that that was my conclusion reading the dissent, but obviously it will speak for itself.”

Justice Ginsburg did not that that position. She would have had to deal with the Equal Protection claims to get there. But she didn't. People can debate about Sotomayor, but it is interesting that a federal judge sitting on the bench for 17 years would make such a mistake.

Ms. Eviatar should correct the article.

]]> By: runfastandwin http://washingtonindependent.com/49140/conservatives-find-political-fodder-in-firefighter-decision/comment-page-1#comment-40010 runfastandwin Wed, 01 Jul 2009 02:48:59 +0000 http://washingtonindependent.com/?p=49140#comment-40010 Isn't this all moot? Does anyone doubt she will be quickly confirmed by a wide margin? Isn't this all moot? Does anyone doubt she will be quickly confirmed by a wide margin?

]]> By: Irish_Wake http://washingtonindependent.com/49140/conservatives-find-political-fodder-in-firefighter-decision/comment-page-1#comment-39922 Irish_Wake Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:55:20 +0000 http://washingtonindependent.com/?p=49140#comment-39922 No 5-4 ruling is decisive and has rebuffed nothing. SCOTUS has decided that the case had merit. This is an example of the system working as it was designed. No 5-4 ruling is decisive and has rebuffed nothing. SCOTUS has decided that the case had merit. This is an example of the system working as it was designed.

]]>