He's Judge, Jury, And Executioner In His Mind

Naturally, this reactionary response was predictable.



Thankfully Limbaugh is not a Judge, as he has relative sense of judicial precident or the power that the Supreme Court has verses the 2nd District Court of Appeals.

In following precedent , Sotomayor ruled accordingly with the Ricci case:

New Haven’s decision to toss out test results after a promotion test was administered is not unprecedented. Indeed, in the 1984 case Bushey v. New York State Civil Service Commission—decided eight years before Sotomayor became a judge—the Second Circuit considered a nearly identical case. Just like in Ricci, in Bushey white applicants significantly outperformed minority applicants on a promotion test, and the employer in Bushey responded by adjusting minority scores upward to render more non-whites eligible for promotion. The court upheld this rescoring of minority applicants, explaining that employers are allowed to “voluntarily compl[y]” with civil rights law by reconsidering tests that have an adverse impact on minorities.

Because Bushey has never been overruled, it is considered a binding precedent in the Second Circuit, and Judge Sotomayor was required to follow it when her panel was called upon to decide Ricci. To do otherwise would mean ignoring the law in order to benefit a sympathetic plaintiff—exactly the kind of “judicial activism” Buchanan accuses progressive judges of engaging in.

The US Supreme Court, however, is not bound within the same constrictions has the 2nd Distric Court of Appeals. Today, the Supreme Court set their own precedent in a 5 to 4 ruling.

Limbaugh's cacauphonus blathering isn't without an echo.

Today, Texas Republican Senator John Coryn issued a statement in which he claimed that all 9 justices were "critical" of Sotomayor:

Today's decision is a victory for evenhanded application of the law. Saying the earlier decision was 'antithetical to the notion of a workplace where individuals are guaranteed equal opportunity regardless of race,' the Supreme Court saw the case for what it is: a 'race-based decision' that violates federal law. And while the Justices divided on the outcome, all nine Justices were critical of the trial court opinion that Judge Sotomayor endorsed."

Being this close to the 2010 election cycle, Sonia Sotomayor, as well as the Ricci case, is going to be a much used talking-point within the conservative caves of the Republican party. However, an overwhelming majority of Americans believe that she should be confirmed:

Sonia Sotomayor enjoys broad public support for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, with large majorities of Americans rejecting the notion that her sex, race or ethnicity play a negative role in how she decides cases as a judge.

Sixty-two percent in this ABC News/Washington Post poll say Sotomayor should be confirmed, among the highest levels of support for a high court nominee in polling data back to Robert Bork in 1987. The only numerically higher was 63 percent initial support for Clarence Thomas, which fell when his nomination turned controversial.

Whereas the inflamatory rhetoric applied by the likes of Rush and Fox"News" are going to play well to the conservative base, it's not going to help them with centrist Republicans who feel that the party is leaning more towards the "white is right" mantra.