Much to the dismay of Sotomayor supporters, the Supreme Court ruled early this morning to overturn the case of Ricci v. Destefano. The case, involving a racial discrimination suit for Connecticut firefighters, was overturned in a 5-4 decision, making it Sotomayor’s 7th disputed ruling. Five of her rulings have already been overturned by the Supreme Court; fueling the debate of whether she is qualified to join the most prestigious court in the country. However, this case comes under more scrutiny as Sotomayor’s own friend and mentor, Jose A. Cabranes, voiced his opposition to her ruling in this case.
Leaning to his older, more conservative views, Cabranes disagreed with Sotomayor’s defense of race-related, civil rights policies. She had ruled in favor of New Haven’s actions to disregard the white firefighter’s suit of discrimination, saving the city from a potentially large lawsuit. This case, among others, screams to Sotomayor’s tendency to let her own background cloud her judgment at the bench, giving conservatives more support for her opposition. Cabranes, though at odds with her decision, still continues to support her; “I wanted to put her on the right path, and I don’t think I was wrong.”
Nonetheless, with or without the support of her mentor, conservatives are making great strides in their attempts to oppose Sotomayor’s appointment. Five Supreme Court reversals and 2 upheld-but-highly-disputed decisions speak volumes against Sotomayor’s competence to rule and make judgments on important legal decisions and revisions. These reversals, beginning with Tasini v. New York in 1997 and stretching all the way to this morning’s Ricci ruling, give feedback regarding Sotomayor’s views and tendencies when ruling from the bench.
The Tasini v. New York case was overturned in 1997, with the SC ruling against Sotomayor’s dismissal of a group of freelance journalists’ claims of copyright violation. It was overturned in a 7-2 decision, making it the first of many oppositions to Sotomayor’s decisions. In 2000, following a review of Malesko v. Correctional Services Corporation, the SC overturned Sotomayor’s decision to allow the “Bivens” law to permit a former prisoner take suit against a private company in charge of a federal halfway house. The Court stated that she had “inappropriately expanded a previous decision to cover the current case.” Then, in 2006, the SC upheld Sotomayor’s ruling in the Knight v. Commissioner case. However, the Court stated that her reasoning on the matter was inappropriate, and her method “flies in the face of the statutory language.”
Conversely, perhaps the most significant of the Supreme Court reversals was the unanimous decision to overturn Sotomayor’s ruling in Dabit v. Merrill Lynch. Sotomayor had ruled to let state courts hear cases involving fraudulent lawsuits brought against investment firms; cases that are supposed to be tried in federal courts only. The SC overruled her decision in 2005, claiming that such policies could lead to “wasteful, duplicative litigation.”
These cases, together with this morning’s Ricci decision, obviously disqualify Sotomayor as a competent appointee for the United States Supreme Court. The highest court in the land has no business accepting an appointee with whom they have had so many disputes and disagreements. The Supreme Court is meant to check and balance its fellow branches of government, ensuring efficient, sound, and respectable government. Obviously, with her biased court rulings and inadequate legal considerations, Sonia Sotomayor is not up for the job.