As I recall from the two Bush SCOTUS appointments, the standard expected by Republicans (and most of the media coverage) was:

"We should let the President have his pick."

That is, unless the nominee once belonged to the SS, or vivisects kitten for a hobby (or was utterly ridiculous, i.e. Harriet Miers), the opposition party has no business obstructing the process.

But, of course, that was then.

People would do well to read about the case here: http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Ricci,_et_al._v._DeStefano,_et_al.

Agree or disagree with Sotomayor's ruling all you wish, but at least do so based on the merits of the actual case. She did not make some blanket ruling that gave people the authority to discriminate against white people (a concept which is rather funny to me, tbh). She simply ruled that the city was afforded the rights by Title VII to certify or not certify the results of the exam (in which black firefighters performed much worse than they did in past exams) based on routine hearings (in which testimony was given that the exams were, indeed, racially biased).

Research is fun!

Alas, I fear you may be correct, yon Cardinal.

Republicans have a strong proclivity to do one thing while in power, yet clamor for quite the opposite when no longer in power (see: fiscal responsibility, states rights, small government and, perhaps, presidential nominations)

Time will tell...

Terse percuriam decision? You'd think she be polite and her recuse herself from the whole sordid affair.

"I can't thank Jon Kyl enough for making sure the judges I nominate get a fair hearing and an up or down vote on the floor of the United States Senate."
-- George W. Bush, Nov 28, 2005

I suspect Mr. Kyl will not be so dedicated to the up-or-down-vote this time around.

Just the Republicans, Heimdall?

Quick Editor's Note: It's "Sotomayor," not "Sontomayor." There is no "N." The first half of the blog post spells her name differently than the headline and the 2nd half...

As for Ricci v DeStefano... all politics aside, this is about a city that was scared of being sued for discrimination... and wound up being sued for reverse discrimination. The lower court said, "Yes, the city had good reason to be scared so we can't fault them for not certifying the test." The appeals decision (Judge S's panel) just rubber stamped the, "yup, they should be scared of lawsuits," decision. Perhaps, given this decision, she'd be in favor of tort reform?

And as for per curiam: It'd be nice if every judge heard every case, but that only happens in the world of gumdrops and unicorns.

Who remembers the Gang of 14? 7 + 7 = 14.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_14

Nelson (D-NE), Lieberman (D-CT), Byrd (D-WV), Landrieu (D-LA), Inouye (D-HI), Pryor (D-AR), Salazar (D-CO).

Phhaw. Heimdall and Cardinal your reasoning is faulty and memories bad. The Democrats made a push to oppose both Roberts and Alito. No Democrat can say with a straight face that Sotomayor is more qualified than Roberts. But why did they vote against Roberts and Alito? Because they were too extereme? Well you can hardly blame Republicans for doing the same. I recall the Republicans were enraged that they waved through Ginsburg and Breyer with nary a problem and got a fight for Roberts and Alito. the days of 100-0 confirmations are over.
The Republicans will let her get a vote, like the Democrats ultimately did with Roberts and Alito. Howvere, like the Democrats they will try and get their pound of flesh first.

eric,

The Dems are pretty unabashed -- whether in power or not -- about wanting to spend money, raise taxes, and have a larger role for government.

The Republicans, on the other hand, will spend huge sums of money (i.e., increasing the size of government) when in power, but lower taxes on today's wealthy, forcing higher taxes on future generations to pay back the principal plus interest. They'll pretend that wars don't need to be budgeted for. That huge new entitlements don't need to be negotiated ("Thanks, pharma industry, we'll pay retail...")

Then when out of power they'll whine and moan about Democratic spending and the size of the (largely Republican-created) deficit and the size of government.

So, at the very least "especially the Republicans".

edgus, I have no idea what you're writing about. You seem to have completely missed the point I was making, and substituted it with one better suited to the argument you want to make.

That's lovely, but please don't sign my name to your straw man. Thanks, cheers.

Alas,I fear you may be confused, yon Heimdy.

The subject at hand is interpretation of constitutional law. Fortunately for all, she is not being nominated for Chief Justice.

That slot is already reserved - for life.

SageV, testimony was given by a competiting test operator who (not surprisingly) asserted their test was less racially biased; but also testified that there was no reason to believe the test was not lawful. What is suspicious about the claims of the city in this case is that they objected to the test (by not accepting the results) only after seeing the outcome and despite the fact that there was no testimony, or complaint, that the test was critically biased.

The big problem in this case is it appears no-one among the city, testers, firefighters or the courts knows the standard of care required to establish that a test is fair. Unfortunately, the ruling in this case did nothing to narrow that problem because no one is claiming the test is biased or unbiased. Even the city doesn't claim the test was biased, but flawed in some other unspecified way.

The city however asserts that their right to avoid litigation for discrimination is superior to the rights of the firefighters to avoid discrimination. Sounds like a bad situation for everyone involved.

edgus, flip,

My point in the general case is that Republicans say one thing when not in power, and then do the opposite when in power (and conversely).

In the specific case of this blog, the Republicans (when in power) said that we should respect the decision of the president vis a vis qualified SCOTUS nominations. It's his decision. Lay off the opposition. Jeez, guys. Stamp him on in, already.

Then, when out of power, they indicate that they'll oppose a qualified nominee even before she's nominated by the president. And, ironically, even though she was appointed to the Federal bench by a Republican president (GHWB).

I also tossed out a couple of other examples to bolster the general point and demonstrate that this isn't isolated behavior on their part, but systematic: do what I say, but not what I do (or we'll crucify you.)

No one's memory or reasoning is 100%, but I thought that was pretty clear. I'm sure you'll let me know if you disagree...

ABC News Senior White House Correspondent, Jake Tapper, wrote:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/05/republicans-sot.html

"Republican Senators Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and John Cornyn, R-Texas, signaled that her confirmation could be a lengthy process.

“Senate Republicans will treat Judge Sotomayor fairly. But we will thoroughly examine her record to ensure she understands that the role of a jurist in our democracy is to apply the law even-handedly, despite their own feelings or personal or political preferences,” Senate Minority Leader McConnell said."

The president has indicated he would like the Senate's confirmation by Aug. 7. Two months from now.

Regardless of what anyone might have said this past weekend, Sotomayor was nominated this morning. Either Rahm Emmanuel was sending 'dead fish' to Republican Senators, or she might be confirmed by the summer recess.

Justice is blind, yon Heimdy. Now let's go have a Pabst Blue Ribbon.

Edgus:
1. The Democrats mostly capitulated when it came to the nomination of John Roberts, both because of his reputation of brilliance and also the fact that he was a conservative replacing a conservative. However, you're right about Democratic efforts on the Alito front.

2. Don't fall victim to "what-about-ism." Cardinal Jones et al. pointed out that Republicans will likely be hypocrites on this issue. You promptly accused them of having faulty memories and pointed out that Democrats also will be hypocrites on this issue (since like Republicans, they're on the pro-nominee side). You're right about the Democrats, of course, but that doesn't disprove Cardinal's argument that the Republicans will likely be hypocritical on this issue.

When it comes to the arguments about "hypocrites" and "politicians," I usually go for the compromise position of assuming the two terms are synonyms.

From the LA Times:

In a case decided almost 40 years ago, Griggs vs. Duke Power Co., the Supreme Court explained that Title VII "has not commanded that the less qualified be preferred over the better qualified simply because of minority origins." Instead, the court said, "What Congress has commanded is that any tests used must measure the person for the job and not the person in the abstract."

It would seem that the issue is the extent to which the test is actually useful in determining who ought to be promoted to lieutenants or captains in the fire department.

"first Hispanic Supreme Court nominee"

You say this in two posts. Therefore, Economist, please allow me to introduce you to Benjamin Cardozo.

Mr. Cardozo was the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice. I assume that at some point before he became a Justice, he was nominated for the position.

Not only that, but Justice Cardozo is considered one of the leading lights of Constitutional jurisprudence. Leaving him out is a mind-boggling error.

Bit of a hard sell that Cardozo was Hispanic. He was born of Sephardic Jewish stock, into families that had been in the U.S. for several generations. Before the U.S., his ancestors had settled in England, and before that, Holland. The strongest claim to Cardozo being Hispanic would be the fact that his ancestors were living in Iberia around the time of the Inquisition. In the U.S., where Hispanic typically means Latin American, Cardozo wouldn't be considered Hispanic at all.

My point Cardinal and Heimdall is you two can hardly tut-tut the Republicans as especially hypocritical without even mentioning the Democrats. The point you both made is the Republicans have said one thing then and will do another now.
Well, I will agree with Martin that you could fairly say BOTH parties are hypocrites on this matter. However you two clearly point to the hypocrisy of one (Republicans) while ignoring the other (Democrats). I think it is more than fair for me to say that you can’t fairly complain at length about one, without mentioning the other. There is no straw man there.