The "wise latina" shown to be otherwise by the Supreme Court

I have no doubts that y'all have heard about the New Haven decision. Even though I do not believe this will fully derail her, watching the White House try to minimize this tells me that it is a start and I feel I must celebrate!

The Supreme Court's rejection of a decision against white firefighters endorsed by Judge Sonia Sotomayor gives Republicans a renewed chance to attack her speeches and writings but is not expected to imperil her confirmation to the high court, political and legal sources said yesterday.

The decision that the New Haven, Conn., firefighters were unfairly denied promotions because of their race comes two weeks before Sotomayor's Senate confirmation hearings and is an unwelcome distraction for the White House from what had seemed like a relatively smooth confirmation process. It is also somewhat of an embarrassment, forcing administration officials to explain why the court overturned a controversial decision backed by its prospective next member.

Sotomayor was on the three-judge appellate court panel that last year upheld New Haven's decision to throw out a promotion test it gave the firefighters when no African Americans and only two Hispanics qualified for advancement. The 134-word order has been the flash point for much of the debate since President Obama nominated Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. The high court yesterday narrowly reversed the appellate court decision, ruling 5-4 in favor of the white firefighters who sued New Haven. It was the fourth time the Supreme Court has overturned Sotomayor; it has upheld her decisions three times. Experts say the court customarily reverses three-quarters of the cases it reviews.

As reactions broke along the partisan lines seen yesterday on the Supreme Court itself, conservatives called the decision a repudiation of Sotomayor. They signaled they will use it to sharply question her about her views on discrimination, especially in conjunction with her 2001 remark that a "wise Latina woman" would usually decide cases better than a white man.

"Every citizen has a right to have his or her case heard by a judge who will rule on the laws, the facts and the Constitution -- and not play favorites," said Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.), the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee. "This case sharpens our focus on Judge Sotomayor's troubling speeches and writings, which indicate the opposite belief: that personal experiences and political views should influence a judge's decision."

But Hans von Spakovsky, a legal scholar at the conservative Heritage Foundation and a former Justice Department official, said the case raised questions about Sotomayor's fitness to serve on the high court. "Judge Sotomayor's willingness . . . to allow her admitted personal biases towards certain racial and ethnic groups affect her judging raises serious questions about her qualifications to sit on the Supreme Court," he said.

Supreme Court limits reach of Voting Rights Act

This is a step in the right direction. I'm all like tingly and stuff:)

In a 5-4 decision, the court said officials need not consider race when drawing districts for state legislatures, county boards, city councils and school districts, so long as blacks do not make up a voting majority in a particular area.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, speaking for the court, said the law can "hasten the waning of racism in American politics" by making race less of factor in drawing electoral districts.

In today's decision, the justices rejected a move to draw a "cross-over district" in North Carolina where an area that had a 39% black population elected a black representative to the state's General Assembly.

State lawmakers believed the Voting Rights Act required them to draw districts that would give black candidates a realistic chance of winning.

I feel like I'm watching a shell game

Supreme Court dismisses case of suspected Al Qaeda agent

Justices vacate an appeals court ruling that said the president has the power to imprison people in the U.S. indefinitely without a trial. The White House did not want a showdown over Bush policies.

Associated Press

March 7, 2009

Washington -- The Supreme Court on Friday bowed out of deciding whether the president has the power to imprison people in the U.S. indefinitely without a trial -- avoiding a showdown the Obama administration did not want.

The court granted the administration's request to dismiss the challenge to the president's authority from suspected Al Qaeda sleeper agent Ali Saleh Kahlah Marri, who was detained by the military for 5 1/2 years without charges.

But the court's order also vacates the federal appeals court ruling Marri was challenging, which had affirmed the president's power to detain people in the United States without trial.

Marri will be transferred to civilian custody as soon as next week to face charges of providing material support for terrorism. Obama administration lawyers had argued that the case before the high court was moot because Marri had been charged in the criminal system.

"We look forward to prosecuting this case in the criminal justice system and presenting the evidence for a jury to decide [Marri's] guilt or innocence," Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said.

The administration has been spared the unpalatable choice of defending the detention policies of the Bush administration, which candidate Barack Obama strongly criticized, or hurriedly renouncing a power that President Obama has never claimed.



Obama has ordered a review of detention policies, including the designation of suspects as enemy combatants who could be held outside the civilian justice system.


I know this is breaking form but the entire article is here. It really just makes me dizzy. Can someone please explain this?