Yesterday, I wrote about the Ricci v deStefano case that was decided by the Supreme Court. At the time I had read only preliminary reports. The report I read said that the decision was 9-0. At least that is how I remembered it. It also said that the underlying Constitutional issue was not to be decided and the vote on that one was 8-1 with Justice Thomas the only one voting to decide the Constitutional issue. The actual vote on the Ricci case was 5-4. Some reports had the decision as 5-4 and others as 9-0. The ones with 9-0 were reading Justice Ginsberg’s minority report and interpreting it.

Justice Ginsberg and Justice Scalia said basically the same thing in their minority and majority reports, respectively. Both said that the second court of appeals had not followed the law and was not doing their job. They also said that the standard for deciding whether the case should be decided one way or another should not be whether the defendant would be sued, but whether they would be held liable. In this case, the city of New Haven was obviously liable in denying the firefighters their promotions. The only real difference between the reports by Ginsberg and Scalia is in how they determined how the court should have responded. Justice Scalia said that the court should decide in favor of the firefighters as they had been discriminated against. Justice Ginsberg said that the firefighters deserved the sympathy of the court and that was the proper remedy of the court. So, the difference was in how to apply the law, not in whether the city was liable. That was so obvious that they felt anyone could have seen that.

For the most part, my blog of yesterday was correct. I was incorrect in a few particulars and those I wanted to correct today. The main one was the actual final vote of the Supreme Court. That actual vote was 5-4. I reported the vote as 9-0. Rush Limbaugh among others said that the difference between Scalia and Ginsberg was so small that in effect the vote was 9-0.

I was correct in my assessment that the Supreme Court was voting on the fitness of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to sit on the Supreme Court. I stand by this assessment as all nine justices voted that she showed exceedingly poor judgment as an appeals court judge in this case. I am sure that all nine of the Justices would agree that anyone with judgment that poor would not make a good Supreme Court Justice.

Some liberal pundits are saying that Judge Sotomayor would be the liberal equivalent to Justice Scalia. That is something that has no evidence. Of course, liberals do not need evidence to conclude that something is true. Look at global warming and you see that all you have to do is say something is true and a liberal will believe it. So, if you say that Judge Sotomayor will be the liberal equivalent of Justice Scalia, liberals believe it. She has not shown any ability to write. Her writings have been exceedingly dull at best. She does write better than Barack Hussein Obama, but my 10 year old writes better than Obama. She can give a decent speech, but her speeches show none of the intellectual prowess that Justice Scalia is famous for. I guess that other than speaking and writing, she would be the equal of Justice Scalia. Of course, if you subtract writing and speaking there isn’t much left to go on.

Sonia Sotomayor is an intellectual lightweight. She is a racist. She writes poorly. Her speeches are decent, but nothing to stay up late for. Other than being an average speaker, she perfectly reflects the person that nominated her for the Supreme Court. If she actually makes it to the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas will make her look like the fool she really is. Chief Justice Roberts will also make her look like an intellectual lightweight, though he is much more laid back than Justices Scalia and Thomas.

Sonia Sotomayor should not be on the Supreme Court. That is a true statement, unless there is information that has not come to light yet. Since Democrats would have put out the best information first, I doubt that we will find out anything better on her in the coming few weeks. Given the preponderance of Democrats she will probably be confirmed by the Senate. That would be a travesty. It would not be the first, nor sadly will it be the last.

Barack Obama nominated his first Supreme Court Justice yesterday. He selected Sonia Sotomayer. She is a far left nominee, which should be no surprise. If approved, she would be the first Hispanic elevated to the Supreme Court. That would be a distinct honor. That honor should have gone to Miguel Estrada. But the left so demonized him that his nomination was impossible.

For the most part, Judge Sotomayer is uncontroversial. That is to be expected from any Supreme Court nominee. The last thing a President wants is for his nominee to be attacked as badly as Justice Thomas was.

Judge Sotomayer has made a few statements that have people scratching their heads. The worst two are her one that a Hispanic woman can make better decisions than a white male and that the bench is where policy is made. Many people are lining up to oppose her based on those two comments alone. You have to find out the context of those statements before you can jump to a conclusion. Context is what did she really mean when she used the words attributed to her. You look at the statements before and after the statement in question to form the answer to context. At this time, the context has not been released.

The first comment shows a racist tendency. That would be terrible in anyone, but particularly in a Supreme Court nominee. If she truly is a racist, she would not be the first. There have been members of the KKK that have served on the Supreme Court back in the later half of the 19^th century and early part of the 20^th century.

The second comment is one that would indicate that she felt the Constitution was not the law of the land. That would mean that she would be like the other liberal judges on the Supreme Court and use foreign law and her own opinion to determine if something is Constitutional. What Supreme Court Justices are supposed to do is look at the words in the Constitution itself, and nothing else, to determine if something is Constitutional. They can reference other American case law to back up their opinion. But, the words of the Constitution take precedence. Ideally, the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution should be taken into consideration when making the decision. This does not always seem to be the case for more recent Supreme Court decisions.

There is an interview with Jonathan Turley out on You Tube. In the interview, he says that Judge Sonia Sotomayer is just an affirmative action pick. Jonathan Turley teaches law at George Washington School of Law. He should know whether Judge Sotomayer is a good selection or not. Jonathan Turley is also a reliable liberal, so if he is bashing Judge Sotomayer for being an affirmative action pick, she must be pretty bad.

Right now, I am reserving judgment until I know more about Judge Sotomayer. My first impression is not good. The two bad comments raise red flags. Until those red flags are successfully answered, my opinion tends to be negative. If I had a vote and it had to be now, based on first impressions, it would be no. But, we will learn more over the next couple of months. She may not be as bad as the first impressions make her out to be. She might be a Harriet Meier pick or she might be really good. I just hope she is not as bad as Ruth Bader Ginsberg. That would be a total disaster.