Court Watch: An Analysis of Sotomayor's Decisions on Race-Related Cases

[Crabtownboy]

More information. Hope you find it interesting.

By Garance Franke-Ruta
The indispensable SCOTUSBlog, from the Washington-based firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, has published an analysis of every race-related decision made by appellate Judge Sonia Sotomayor, finding that she rarely disagreed with her colleagues on cases involving claims of discrimination.

Meanwhile, Pollster.com has aggregated the latest surveys and found a huge gender gap in favor of Sotomayor among female Republicans as compared with male members of the GOP, but no dramatic gender difference among Democrats.

Tom Goldstein, a partner at Akin Gump who has argued more than 20 cases before the Supreme Court, writes: "Other than Ricci, Judge Sotomayor has decided 96 race-related cases" while on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. The reference is to the well-publicized case Ricci v. DeStefano, which involved a promotion exam for New Haven, Conn., firefighters. The case is now under review by the Supreme Court.

"Of the 96 cases, Judge Sotomayor and the panel rejected the claim of discrimination roughly 78 times and agreed with the claim of discrimination 10 times," he continued; "the remaining 8 involved other kinds of claims or dispositions. Of the 10 cases favoring claims of discrimination, 9 were unanimous."

"Of the roughly 75 panel opinions rejecting claims of discrimination, Judge Sotomayor dissented 2 times," Goldstein writes.

"The numbers relating to unpublished opinions continued to hold as well. In the roughly 55 cases in which the panel affirmed district court decisions rejecting a claim of employment discrimination or retaliation, the panel published its opinion or order only 5 times," Goldstein writes.

"In sum, in an eleven-year career on the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor has participated in roughly 100 panel decisions involving questions of race and has disagreed with her colleagues in those cases (a fair measure of whether she is an outlier) a total of 4 times. ... Given that record, it seems absurd to say that Judge Sotomayor allows race to infect her decisionmaking."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/05/30/court_watch_an_analysis_of_sot.html?hpid=sec-politics

 

[targus]

Not sure if the analysis of her voting record as presented here means anything or not.

What were the particular race involved in those cases? Particularily in the cases in which she parted from the majority.

She may reserve her racism - if there is any - for instances in which she can vote in favor of her own race.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Not sure if the analysis of her voting record as presented here means anything or not.

What were the particular race involved in those cases? Particularily in the cases in which she parted from the majority.

She may reserve her racism - if there is any - for instances in which she can vote in favor of her own race.

I am not sure I follow your logic. First you say that her voting record does not mean anything, and they you say her voting record can be used for judging. Which is it?

 

[targus]

I am not sure I follow your logic. First you say that her voting record does not mean anything, and they you say her voting record can be used for judging. Which is it?

If you read with a little more care - you will see that what I said is:

"Not sure if the analysis of her voting record as presented here means anything or not."

I am questioning whether or not the this particular analysis of her judicial record is meaningful.

 

[Robert Snow]

I am not sure I follow your logic. First you say that her voting record does not mean anything, and they you say her voting record can be used for judging. Which is it?

What logic?

 

[targus]

What logic?

I gather from your incomplete sentence that you are asking for the meaning of the word logic.

Logic is a particular method of reasoning and argumentation. It is the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.

 

[OldRegular]

More information. Hope you find it interesting.



http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/05/30/court_watch_an_analysis_of_sot.html?hpid=sec-politics

Of course the Washington Post is fair and balanced!:tonofbricks:

 

[KenH]

It's better than the conservative propaganda site, WorldNetDaily, that some conservatives think is a legitimate news source.

 

[carpro]

Not sure if the analysis of her voting record as presented here means anything or not.

What were the particular race involved in those cases? Particularily in the cases in which she parted from the majority.

She may reserve her racism - if there is any - for instances in which she can vote in favor of her own race.

Agreed.

Without knowing the specifics of the 4 cases in which she was in the minority, the statistics are practically meaningless.

Even further, she sits on a very liberal court and all their decisions will lean in that direction. For her to dissent may mean she was so far left that even the rest of the liberals on the court couldn't go there.