Washington, D.C. (Updated) — It took just 21 minutes before the specter of Ricci v. DeStefano reared its head Monday as confirmation hearings began for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.
Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, brought up the case Monday morning as he launched a Republican effort to raise doubts over whether the nominee will rule impartially from the nation’s highest court.
The Ricci case topped Sessions’ list of “troubling rulings” in Sotomayor’s record.
The Supreme Court ruled June 29 in Ricci v. DeStefano that New Haven can’t ignore the results of a fire department promotional exam just because African-Americans performed poorly. The case became a flashpoint for the national debate over racial preference in hiring, and ammunition for Sotomayor’s critics. Sotomayor was a member of a three-judge appeals panel that had earlier upheld New Haven’s position in the case.
“I am concerned by the nominee’s decision in Ricci, the New Haven firefighters case — recently reversed by the Supreme Court — where she agreed with the City of New Haven’s decision to change its promotion rules in the middle of the game,” said Sessions (at right in photo beside Sen. Jon Kyl, Republican from Arizona).
“Incredibly, her opinion consisted of just one substantive paragraph of analysis concerning the major legal question involved in the case.
“Judge Sotomayor has said that she accepts that her opinions, sympathies, and prejudices will affect her rulings. Could it be that her time as a leader of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund provides a clue as to her decision against the firefighters?
“While the nominee was chair of the Fund’s Litigation Committee, the organization aggressively pursued racial quotas in city hiring and, in numerous cases, fought to overturn the results of promotion exams.
“It seems to me that in Ricci, Judge Sotomayor ‘s empathy for one group of firefighter turned out to be prejudice against others.”
Sessions’ remarks set the stage for upcoming theatrics later this week: The 19 senators on the panel, 12 Democrats and seven Republicans, are set to begin questioning Sotomayor, a Yale Law School graduate, on Tuesday morning.
The question isn’t whether Republicans will derail the confirmation. (“Unless you have a complete meltdown, you’re gonna get confirmed,” conceded Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham (pictured) of South Carolina.)
The question, rather, is how effectively Republicans will use the Ricci case to score points in the court of public opinion. Frank Ricci himself is scheduled to testify later this week.
Also remaining to be seen is whether Democrats will attempt to discredit Ricci as a witness due to the recent revelation that he got his job through his own discrimination complaint, claiming he was denied employment on the basis of his dyslexia.
In an oblique reference to Ricci, Sen. Orrin Hatch, of Utah, said there are news reports “that left-wing groups supporting Judge Sotomayor” are “engaged in a smear campaign against the plaintiff in one of her more controversial cases, a man who will be testifying here later in the week.”
Hatch urged Democrats to rise above such attacks, if they’re true. Such a smear campaign “is beneath both contempt and the dignity that this process demands,” he said.
None of the 12 Democrats who spoke Monday mentioned the Ricci case directly. They did, however, respond to the oft-repeated Republican attack that Sotomayor may let her “biases” and “personal preferences” dictate how she rules from the bench.
In his opening remarks, Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, sought to preempt the attack on the nominee’s impartiality. He turned to her 17 years on the federal bench as evidence.
“[Sotomayor] has said that ‘ultimately and completely’ a judge has to follow the law, no matter what their upbringing has been. That is the kind of fair and impartial judging that the American people expect. That is respect for the rule of the law. That is the kind of judge she has been. That is the kind of fair and impartial Justice she will be and that the American people deserve,” Leahy said.
The first day of hearings took on a largely civil tone, save for four anti-abortion activists who popped up at various intervals. They yelled remarks such as, “Stop the genocide of unborn Latinos!” then were whisked away by security guards out doors hidden in the wooden-paneled walls of the hearing room.
After senators’ introductory remarks, Sotomayor raised her right hand to be sworn in, accompanied by a cascade of rapid-fire shutter clicks from the surrounding media throng. In her brief introductory speech, she focused on her biography — from a child raised by a single mom in public housing in the Bronx, to an Ivy league graduate and veteran federal judge. She defined her judicial philosophy: “fidelity to the law.”
Sotomayor, who would be the first Hispanic and third woman appointed to the Supreme Court, said she has received letters from across the country since her nomination by President Obama in May.
“Many tell a unique story of hope in spite of struggles,” she said. “Each has deeply touched me. Each reflects a belief in the dream that led my parents to come to New York all those years ago.
“It is our Constitution that makes that dream possible, and I now seek the honor of upholding the Constitution as a Justice on the Supreme Court.”
Hearings are set to resume Tuesday at 9:30 a.m.
Past stories on fire department promotions and the Ricci case:
• Watley: I’d Have Promoted Ricci
• Firebirds, NAACP: Ricci Won’t Stop Us
• “If You Work Hard You Can Succeed In America”
• Was He The Culprit?
• Supreme Court Overturns City On Ricci
• On Page 25, A Hint
• Minority Firefighters Vow Post-Ricci Unity
• Ricci Ruling Won’t End Quest
• Ricci, Sotomayor Brand DeStefano
• Firefighter Case Reveals Surprise Obama Stand
• Justices Zero In On Race-Based Distinctions
• Rights Groups Back Black Firefighters
• The Supreme Stakes: Title VII’s Future
• Dobbs v. Bolden
• Latino Group Backs White Firefighters
• Black Firefighters: Ricci Case Poses Grave Threat
• NAACP Backs City In Firefighter Case
• Paging Justice Kennedy
• Fire Inspectors Promoted
• Fire Inspector List Approved
• U.S. Supreme Court To Hear Firefighters’ Case
• Fire Promotions Examined in Supreme Court
"Also remaining to be seen is whether Democrats will attempt to discredit Frank Ricci as a witness due to the recent revelation that he got his job through his own discrimination complaint, claiming he was denied employment on the basis of his dyslexia."
Does Ricci actually need to be discredited as an expert on Constitutional interpretation and the role of the judiciary? Did I miss the part where he wrote several law review articles? Don't get me wrong, he's not the only witness that I take issue with (I can't for the life of me figure out why the Democrats called David Cone), but really, Ricci is a guy whose jurisprudential views can be summed up as: "Antidiscrimination laws are great when they work in my favor and unconscionable when they don't."
It also seems that the NHI failed to point out a fairly important misrepresentation by Sen. Sessions (who, by the way, once claimed he thought the KKK was alright until he found out that "some of them were pot smokers): the opinion was not Judge Sotomayor's, per se. It was the unsigned opinion of a three-judge panel (which included a bonafide white male), and the panel ruled unanimously.