Judge Sotomayor voted with the majority based on a 25-year-old legal precedent. That is to say, she followed the law. If she had not done that, the right would be hollering that she legislates from the bench.
Judges must follow legal precedent. Then their decision can be appealed to the next higher court and that court can overrule or support their decision. This happens every day.
Is it apparent that many on here don't know what a judge's job duties are and also don't realize that a judge's decisions do not necessarily reflect their own personal beliefs?
New Haven’s decision to toss out test results after a promotion test was administered is not unprecedented. Indeed, in the 1984 case Bushey v. New York State Civil Service Commission—decided eight years before Sotomayor became a judge—the Second Circuit considered a nearly identical case. Just like in Ricci, in Bushey white applicants significantly outperformed minority applicants on a promotion test, and the employer in Bushey responded by adjusting minority scores upward to render more non-whites eligible for promotion. The court upheld this rescoring of minority applicants, explaining that employers are allowed to “voluntarily compl[y]” with civil rights law by reconsidering tests that have an adverse impact on minorities.
Because Bushey has never been overruled, it is considered a binding precedent in the Second Circuit, and Judge Sotomayor was required to follow it when her panel was called upon to decide Ricci. To do otherwise would mean ignoring the law in order to benefit a sympathetic plaintiff—exactly the kind of “judicial activism” the right accuses progressive judges of engaging in.
Judges must follow legal precedent. Then their decision can be appealed to the next higher court and that court can overrule or support their decision. This happens every day.
Is it apparent that many on here don't know what a judge's job duties are and also don't realize that a judge's decisions do not necessarily reflect their own personal beliefs?
New Haven’s decision to toss out test results after a promotion test was administered is not unprecedented. Indeed, in the 1984 case Bushey v. New York State Civil Service Commission—decided eight years before Sotomayor became a judge—the Second Circuit considered a nearly identical case. Just like in Ricci, in Bushey white applicants significantly outperformed minority applicants on a promotion test, and the employer in Bushey responded by adjusting minority scores upward to render more non-whites eligible for promotion. The court upheld this rescoring of minority applicants, explaining that employers are allowed to “voluntarily compl[y]” with civil rights law by reconsidering tests that have an adverse impact on minorities.
Because Bushey has never been overruled, it is considered a binding precedent in the Second Circuit, and Judge Sotomayor was required to follow it when her panel was called upon to decide Ricci. To do otherwise would mean ignoring the law in order to benefit a sympathetic plaintiff—exactly the kind of “judicial activism” the right accuses progressive judges of engaging in.