Why didn't Sotomayor write an opinion in the New Haven case?

blueclown

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-26-09 06:39 PM
Original message

Why didn't Sotomayor write an opinion in the New Haven case?

In Ricci v. DeStefano, a federal district court ruled against the plantiffs (Ricci). The plantiff then appealed this case to the federal appeals court in their jurisdiction, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, where Justice Sotomayor resided at that point in time. She and the two other justices agreed with the district court, but they did not offer any substantial opinion with their ruling, which is quite odd in a high profile case such as that.

Why didn't Sotomayor write her own opinion in this case? I really hope she is asked this in the confirmation hearings.

http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Ricci%2C_et_al._v._DeStefano%2C_et_al.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

jberryhill

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-26-09 06:40 PM
Response to Original message

1. Because it was an affirmance

Edited on Tue May-26-09 07:05 PM by jberryhill

If they didn't find any bones to pick with the lower court decision, no additional substantive opinion is needed.

Courts don't give a damn if a case is "high profile". A case is a case.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

onenote

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-26-09 06:49 PM
Response to Original message

2. exactly correct. To quote from the "per curiam" opinion:

"We affirm for the reasons stated in the thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion of the court below."

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

IndianaGreen

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-26-09 07:01 PM
Response to Original message

3. She followed judicial precedent

Rightwingers can't have it both way. You can't be an activist jurist if one follows judicial precedent.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

jberryhill

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-26-09 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #3

4. Eh...

District court opinions are not "precedent" for appeals courts.

But in any event, the point is that the 2nd Circuit agreed with the district court and did not feel compelled to say more than that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

IndianaGreen

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-26-09 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #4

5. The trial court followed SCOTUS precedent

SCOTUS may reverse itself, since this case will be decided during this term.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

jberryhill

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-26-09 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #5

6. Okay...

Insofar as the affirmance is read as the appeals court agreeing that the DC correctly applied controlling authority.

But, given the generally odd notions here about what judges actually do, I can see a vacation from DU in my future, to keep my sanity and my high regard for DUers.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Ocracoker16

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-26-09 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #6

7. Thank you for clarifying this

Your explanation makes sense to me. There is nothing unusual about not writing an opinion for an affirmation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Thu May 16th 2024, 01:00 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.