She asked probing questions of each side in the reverse-discrimination suit. But the circuit court's 135-word summary order rubbed some the wrong way.
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is an aggressive and, at times, dominating force on the bench.
There is nothing halfway about her. As a judge, she is tough, relentless. She does not telegraph her leanings by going easy on one lawyer while being excessively hard-nosed on another. Instead, her courtroom demeanor is that of an equal-opportunity buzz saw.
Everyone in Judge Sotomayor’s courtroom eventually bleeds a little.
That is the picture that emerges from an audio recording of a Dec. 10, 2007, oral argument presided over by Sotomayor and two other federal appeals-court judges in a controversial reverse-discrimination case called Ricci v. DeStefano.
That same case is now pending before the US Supreme Court, with a decision – and possible reversal of Sotomayor – expected later this month.
The Ricci case also is emerging as a focal point of the investigation into Sotomayor’s temperament, legal acumen, and judicial philosophy. It will probably play a central role in Senate confirmation hearings, particularly if Republicans try to make Sotomayor’s nomination into a referendum on the use of racial preferences in government employment decisions.
Roots of a discrimination case
At issue in Ricci v. DeStefano is whether the city of New Haven, Conn., acted properly in 2004 when it refused to follow through on planned promotions in the fire department after it discovered that no African-Americans had scored high enough on a civil service test to qualify to become a lieutenant or a captain.
Frank Ricci and 17 other firefighters who scored well on the test complained that the city was discriminating against them because of the color of their skin.
Page 1 of 8