Updated at 6:10 p.m. on June 29.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., is picking up a common Democratic theme today: that the Supreme Court's ruling in Ricci v. DeStefano this morning should not reflect poorly on Sonia Sotomayor.
"Judge Sotomayor and the lower court panel did what judges are supposed to do, they followed precedent," Leahy said. He added that a ruling for the firefighters who were suing New Haven, Conn., over their withheld promotions "would have been judicial activism contrary to clearly settled and longstanding Second Circuit precedent. The Second Circuit was bound by this precedent and not free to adopt a new interpretation of the law, as the Supreme Court has done today."
As a follow-up point about Sotomayor's "judicial restraint," Leahy touted the nominee's endorsement by the American Hunters and Shooters Association and a variety of law enforcement agencies.
The left-leaning People For The American Way was also out early with a response. In fact, it first released its statement on Thursday, when Ricci could have been handed down. Executive Vice President Marge Baker sounded the same notes as Leahy, saying that Sotomayor was restrained by precedent and ruling any other way would have been judicial activism. Baker also argued that "Sotomayor is anything but an outlier," a reference to Republicans' emerging attack strategy (subscription).
A handful of groups on both sides of the aisle have scheduled conference calls with reporters this afternoon to discuss the ruling's impact on Sotomayor's nomination hearings, which are due to begin July 13.
CORRECTION: The Senate Judiciary Committee has not scheduled a conference call, contrary to the original version of this report.
To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although The Ninth Justice does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
Responded on June 29, 2009 12:29 PM
Juan
A weak excuse to justify a bad ruling.
Lets assume your hypothesis (she was held by precedent) were correct – your saying she would have joined Alito, Thomas etc?
Didn’t think so. She issued a bad ruling and no matter how you spin it, that fact is a fact.