A point explicitly made by Sotomayer herself:
Who said it is?
Here’s a negative assessment of her from that bastion of the right, The New Republic:
The biggest problem for her nomination is going to be the current Supreme Court review of her ruling in Ricci v. DeStefano, It’s entirely possible that the Supreme Course will reverse her. And this is a potentially explosive political issue. In this case, a fire department held exams for promotion, and after the results of the exam came in, they canceled the promotion because not enough minorities passed the exam. The firemen who studied like crazy for it and passed sued the fire department, and a panel that included Sotormayor ruled against the firefighters.
From Wikipedia:
You can bet the Republicans are going to force her to answer for her opinion in the confirmation hearings. Public opinion will almost surely be against her decision. Won’t it be hard to confirm her for the Supreme Court if it reverses her in the middle of her confirmation?
Of course, the bottom line is that the Democrats have the votes to do this if they want. But they also don’t need to take a PR hit - if they perceive her confirmation as hurting their popularity, they may demand another candidate. I guess we’ll see.
I’m trying to discern the point of this comment, because it is patently obvious, but does not in any way negate Voyager’s point. Were you simply trying to amplify the point? If so, you have succeeded.
There won’t be a PR hit. This is an extremely easy question to answer. There was no discrimination. It might not have been nice or fair to cancel the promotions, but it didn’t meet the legal definition of discrimination, since there was no difference in how any proteced groups were treated. The lower court hearings will be upheld by the Supreme Court. It’s the correct decision on the law. Ricci was not discriminated against. He was treated the same as everyone else.
It sounds like you would have preferred her to ignore the letter of the law and make a decision based on sympathy instead.
They fire department canceled the promotions because of the skin color of the applicants who passed the test. That is discriminatory. You can argue that it’s justified, but it’s still discriminatory.
Here is a New York Times summary of some major decision Sotomayor has been involved in. I’m not impressed with some of these, but I wonder about the completeness of the summaries. I wish I had some time to look these over, but that’s not likely to happen for me soon.
WHAT?!?! She’s anti-ninja??? No way will she get confirmed!
I don’t think she’ll sail, with one proviso. I think the Forces of Darkness are spoiling for a fight, any fight, that will energise their flagging ardor (though I hope they check with their doctors to assure that they are healthy enough for political activity).
If another issue arises for them to circle about with hue and cry, then she may sail through by the sheer power of being less significant. By all accounts, she is only somewhat liberal, if she were as lefty as “Fat Tony” Scalia is righty, they would beshit themselves most mightily, regardless.
So, if they have another issue to rally around (and it could be damn near anything…), they will focus their waning fire upon that. Failing that, they will continue to tear their hair and shriek about the horror of empathy.
Do Justices have to quit when their opinions don’t command a majority and they file a dissent? Please say yes, because if so, Scalia is a goner.
No it isn’t, actually. Sorry to bust your bubble, but it isn’t. Discrimination requires a showing that groups were treated differently.
So?
Suppose the Birmingham, AL fire department had held a similar test and, finding that none of the white applicants made it and all those who did make it were black, they had cancelled the promotions. Is that discrimination?
I mean, get serious; this isn’t one of those things where you make up your own definition of a commonly accepted term, is it? People have been using the bullshit “They weren’t treated differently, we just changed the rules to conveniently prevent some people of a certain color from getting ahead” excuse since before you were born. It’s always been bullshit, always will be.
What’s next, anti-gay-marriage laws aren’t discriminatory because everyone can marry someone of the opposite sex?
What about Sotomayor’s so called arbitrary limitations on free speech in that thou shalt not call high school administrators ‘douchebags’ on a personal and independent internet blog without facing reprisal?
You really need to look up what “empathy” means.
It’s also worth noting that a person without empathy is by definition a psychopath. I’d hope all judges are possessed of the ability to use empathy.
No.
Not on my part.
I’m sorry, but as I understand it, that’s not clearly true. Indeed, a solid argument exists that it is 60 Senators no matter how many are actually seated. If you have some precedent, or Senate Rule language to the contrary, I’d be interested to see it. 
Suppose a bank, finding that all the homeowners in a given neighborhood are black and that none of the homeowners are white, decided to stop lending to current and prospective residents of that neighborhood. Is that discrimination?
Does the Supreme Court often grant cert to cut-and-dried questions of law?
Is biting the bullet, although it demonstrates an admirable consistency, ever a really effective rhetorical maneuver?
That was my general understanding, but I don’t know for sure. As much as the press likes to talk filibusters at any given opportunity (and it trickles down to the SDMB), I don’t think one is likely in any case. I don’t see Snowe or Collins joining in for starters.
Not if they stop lending to everybody.
In the case in question, it wasn’t as if NO minorities passed the test, just not as many as they wanted. Those minorities who passed got denied the promotions the same as the whities. No discrimination.
I don’t know what this question means.