New Haven Independent

Posted by: DingDong | June 3, 2009 12:35 PM

While I respect that Alderman Lemar's decision not to vote, nothing could be more false than the statement that Judge Sotomayor "has very little on the public record." Judge Sotomayor has 17 years of experience as a judge - that's 17 years of public opinions that are available to read and evaluate. Hardly any other Supreme Court nominee has such a public record (and I think none in the last fifty years) has such an extensive public record.

Posted by: tj | June 3, 2009 12:59 PM

I agree with Arlene Depino....naturally hispanic and black caucus want this..nothing is being fair with this why don't the alderpeople ask there constituants how they feel and get a feed back.....how dare they do this....

Posted by: NH1 | June 3, 2009 1:31 PM

DingDong: I agree.. I took the time to review some of that 17 years you mention and she had hundreds if not thousands of cases go before her. I think she is a swift, educated judge with a good judgement. Of course people will look at 3-4 cases which were of controversy that she ruled on and ERASE the hundreds upon thousands of other cases she had because that's how we are. We like to pull people down, take what the say out of content, and look at the flaws. The Ricci Vs. New Haven case was a controversial case that got a lot of attention in the public eye however if you look at what will happen the Supreme Court might rule against Sotomayor's ruling by what?? ONE vote, Even they are split.

Posted by: Been Called Worse | June 3, 2009 1:59 PM

Lemar said it's not an alderman's role to advise Congress on Supreme Court appointments.

I respect this and am in complete agreement. Keep focused on City of New Haven issues, as you were elected to do. Simple as that.

Posted by: torn | June 3, 2009 2:46 PM

I agree with Lemar on his reasons, but not Depino on hers.. why have confirmation hearings and empower the senate to act if we are just going to quickly react without evaluating people's record the way that the constitution directs? Yes, we love Obama and liberal judges, but why not wait and see before urging congree to act?

Posted by: Roland L. | June 3, 2009 2:58 PM

Just a brief clarification - I have nothing against Judge Sotomayor who has an inspiring life story, a judicial temperment which I have great respect for and, as far as I can tell from her extensive time on the bench and the numerous opinions she has offered, is a jurist whom I have great confidence in.... I just felt that we have a confirmation procedure in place that should hopefully serve our country well and will allow our citizens more ample time to evaluate her qualifications.... if, after that process unfolds, the United States Senate deems my personal recommendation to be a factor for its consideration, I will personally drive to Washington and testify on her behalf.

Absent the Senate's immediate need for my biased opinion in favor of Judge Sotomayor's confirmation, I thought it more prudent to wait for the process to begin.... no disrespect to Judge Sotomayor intended.

Posted by: Pumpkin | June 3, 2009 3:00 PM

Shame on the Black and Hispanic Caucus on voting on a issue that has irreversibly hurt the New Haven Fire service. Joey Rodriguez states "she'll break down barriers and she's a outstanding person" You are a fool. Because the promotion list was not certified it prevented 2 Hispanic Lieutenants from becoming Captains and 3 Black Firefighters from becoming Lieutenants. Her pithy dismissal was a disgrace for all Firefighters.
Joey are all the prostitutes and drug dealers in Fair Haven also outstanding people. As for Vargas,Rivera,Watkins,Ewing and Rountree you all would have made good Captains and Lieutenants.Its a shame you weren't given what you earned and may never have that chance again.

Posted by: Tim | June 3, 2009 3:09 PM

Why are they taking up this issue to begin with? Focus on New Haven!

Posted by: DingDong | June 3, 2009 5:06 PM

And can I make one more comment on the headline on NHI (Country Opposes City, Sotomayor On Ricci). The link is to a poll asking people whether or not they support affirmative action. Presumably when Judge Sotomayor made a ruling on Ricci, she was not telling us her personal opinion on affirmative action. Instead, I would hope, as a judge, she was doing her best to figure out what the law says on affirmative action - not whether or not she likes the law. So please don't conclude that because the public is against affirmative action, it "opposes" Sotomayor.

[Editor's Note: The headline referred to the following two questions in the poll, which specifically asked if people agree with the decision her panel upheld, then asked if it makes them more or less sympathetic to Sotomayor.

"24. As you may know, the United States Supreme Court will be deciding a case involving New Haven, CT's use of promotion tests for firefighters. Because no blacks scored high enough to qualify for promotion, the city decided to throw the test out. Do you think
the Supreme Court should uphold the city or order the city to promote the 14 white and one Hispanic firefighters who scored high enough for promotion?

"25. As you may know, Sonia Sotomayor voted to uphold New Haven's decision as an
appellate court judge. Does this make you more likely to favor her appointment to
the Supreme Court, less likely, or doesn't it make a difference?"

Posted by: DingDong | June 3, 2009 5:31 PM

Okay, fair enough. The headline describes (a small part of) the poll acurrately. It's just that that part of the poll is idiotic. You can't expect a meaningful answer from anyone, even a lawyer, by walking up to them asking "what should the Supreme Court do in this case?" If it was just about voting your opinion, then what would we have law for?

I might still quibble that it's silly to draw attention to that part of the poll in the headline, but I'll admit that's just a quibble.

[Editor's note: I definitely see your point. My eye was drawn to it because that was the point of the headline on the release that the Q poll sent out. That question was the point of the poll for them, leading people up to it.]

Posted by: riz | June 3, 2009 8:03 PM

It was irresponsible of city aldermen to do this when the Ricci case is before the Supreme Court and Sotomayor sided with the city in this very case. Makes these aldermen look like little back room politicianse "paying back" Sotomayor for her siding with them on Ricci by giving her a return endorsement They should know better than to engage in such political posturing and I doubt Sotomayor would appreciate the appearance of it - it doesn't help her but draws more attention to the Ricci case for her.

Posted by: cap | June 3, 2009 8:06 PM

Look at the Quinnipiac poll - looks like the vast majority of the nation's populace does not agree with the aldermen, showing once again New Haven's reputation as way outside what is normal and rational.

Posted by: Common Sense | June 3, 2009 9:05 PM

With all the problems/issues the Board of Aldermen have to deal with concerning the City of New Haven and its residents/taxpayers they now approve a resolution urging Congress to confirm Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring Justice David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court. I wonder if they would approve her as a New Haven Civil Service Commissioner!

Posted by: Badmer | June 4, 2009 3:17 PM

"In my mind, impartiality is the very essence of judging and of being a judge. A judge does not look to his or her sex or racial, social, or religious background when deciding a case. It is exactly these factors that a judge must push to one side in order to render a fair, reasoned judgment on the meaning of the law. In order to be a judge, a person must attempt to exorcise himself or herself of the passions, thoughts, and emotions that fill any frail human being. He must become almost pure, in the way that fire purifies metal, before he can decide a case. Otherwise, he is not a judge, but a legislator. . . ."

Justice Clarence Thomas spoke these words in a speech back in 1996. Now contrast his words with Justice Sotomayors then ask yourself if what New Haven Aldermen did was justified?

Posted by: DingDong | June 4, 2009 5:05 PM

Badmer,

I don't think Sotomayor is saying someone should look to their race when deciding cases, but merely that is inevitable that one's experiences as white, black, latino, asian, whatever influence a judge. We're frail humans after all. It's not the goal, it shouldn't be that, and one should strive for them not influence you, but as long as race is such a powerful force, that's the way it is.

Posted by: Look at the Record | June 4, 2009 7:38 PM

Scotus, the Supreme Court Blog, has posted an analysis of Sotomayor's record on race. Take a look. Both sides of this debate will be surprised:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/category/commentary-and-analysis/

Posted by: Bill | June 5, 2009 10:19 AM

I have to agree with Tim.
I glad there is nothing important happening in New Haven like crime, drugs, shootings and unemployment, while the alderpeople are wasting time on a meaningless resolution.

Posted by: Insider12 | June 5, 2009 10:59 AM

People wake up!

The board of aldermen have always sent resolutions to congress and state, if its urging the state to look into a matter or expressing support behind something. This isn't something that is out of the norm. Who said because one puts a resolution together they have automatically lost focused of local issues? People can't multitask. the aldermen easily call their aid and have them draft something and then boom the rest is history. The State Black and Hispanic Caucus of the General Assembly just sent a similar resolution. Any female group, African American group, or democratic group would of have done the same in a heart beat. This is of significant meaning to them and they obviously have been following some of her work and know of her.

Wake up ! Get over it. Focus YOUR comments on others issues that might be of importance to you instead of commenting here. Hint - there is a good article about an "local" issue related to booting/car impoundment.

Posted by: milly | June 5, 2009 12:46 PM

how about next alder election we vote all these alders out...........get some with there own minds.

Posted by: bumbershoot | June 7, 2009 8:31 AM

I support Sotomayor, but nonetheless: voting on a US Supreme Court nominee? What a bunch of self-important clowns.

Posted by: Melissa Bailey | June 8, 2009 10:24 AM

Note of Correction: The resolution was not proposed during a meeting of the Black & Hispanic Caucus, as originally indicated here.

Posted by: nhfdfriend | June 29, 2009 12:35 PM

Well, they won their case in the Supreme Court without her, so my guess is it was reverse discrimination at the lowest level!! Congratulations to Ricci and his fellow firefighters for pursuing this issue. You all deserve your advancements! Also, kudos to their attorney Karen Torre for taking their case to the highest level! We females know how to fight for our males, either for or against, but this case has made National legal history!!!!!