Have you "Liked" our APP initiatives on Facebook? Latino Partnership - Preserve Innocence - Gold Standard 2012
About APP
The American Principles Project is a 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to preserving and propagating the fundamental principles on which our country was founded - universal principles, embracing the notion that we are all, "created equal, endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Through our efforts, we hope to return our nation to an understanding that governance via these timeless principles will only strengthen us as a country. Continue reading:
Through our efforts, we hope to return our nation to an understanding that governance via these timeless principles will only strengthen us as a country. Continue reading:
APP Mailing List
 |
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
APP Founder
Robert P. George, J.D., D.Phil., McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, is one of America's foremost scholars in the fields of constitutional law, ethics, and political philosophy.
Dr. George has won numerous awards for his academic and civic work, including the Presidential Citizens Medal. He has served on the President's Council on Bioethics and as a presidential appointee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights. He is a former Judicial Fellow at the Supreme Court of the United States, where he received the Justice Tom C. Clark Award.
| APP Backgrounder: Defining moments in Judge Sotomayor's career |
 |
 |
 |
| Written by Administrator |
| Thursday, 16 July 2009 10:30 |
 This backgrounder has been prepared by APP staff. It highlights the important decisions made by Judge Sotomayor and what they could mean for her career on the Supreme Court should she be approved:Ricci v. DeStefano: Based on this case, Americans ought to be wary of Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s inclination to place racial preference ahead of fairly-earned merit in instances of job promotion. The infamous case, recently overturned by the Supreme Court, dealt with a group of New Haven fire-fighters seeking promotions based on test scores that were later discarded by New Haven because the “results showed the tests to be discriminatory,” and may have prompted litigation stemming from the disparate-impact provisions of Title VII to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling through a per curium decision, and later voted 7-6 to deny rehearing en banc, over the dissenting opinion of Judge Jose Cabranes. Judge Sotomayor had been a member of the both the three-judge panel that summarily affirmed the District Court and a member of the seven-judge majority denying the en banc rehearing. Maloney v. Cuomo: Based on this case, Americans ought to be wary of Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s belief that the right to keep and bear arms is not fundamental, and that states may therefore prohibit such weapons of personal protection. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied the petition of a New York attorney claiming that a state law prohibiting possession of a chuka stick (also known as a nunchaku) violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms. The District Court dismissed Maloney’s case, and the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s holding. In a per curium opinion, the three-judge panel, including Judge Sotomayor, held that the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms was not a fundamental right, and that it only applied to the federal government, and not the states. The Court of Appeals followed the precedent set forth by 1883’s Presser v. Illinois, which was decided before the notion of incorporation was endorsed by the Supreme Court in 1925’s Gitlow v. New York. By following this outdated precedent, Sotomayor and her fellow panel-judges could limit the scope of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which held that the federal government could not prohibit the possession of handguns for personal safety and household protection. Ironically, the infamously liberal Ninth Circuit held that the right to bear arms was fundamental in nature (Nordyke v. King), and applied to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. Didden v. Village of Port Chester: Based on this case, Americans ought to be wary of Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s tendency to allow the seizure of citizens’ private property for other private use. In 2003, Bart Didden and Dominick Bologna sought to build a CVS pharmacy on the land that they jointly owned. In order to build the pharmacy the men needed to receive permission from Gregg Wasser, who had been designated by Port Chester to wield wide discretion in the established “redevelopment area.” Wasser demanded either $800,000 a 50% partnership interest in the CVS project. Wasser then threatened to have the local government condemn the land if his interests were not sufficed by Didden and Bologna. After Didden and Bologna refused to conform to Wasser’s demands, their property was condemned the next day. The land was then used for the construction of a Walgreens. Didden and Bologna proceeded to challenge the actions at the District Court level, claiming that such extortion, through the condemnation of their land, could not rightfully qualify as “public use,” as enumerated in the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. A three-judge panel on the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, including Judge Sotomayor, affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of the case. Riverkeeper, Inc. v. EPA: Based on this case, Americans ought to be wary of Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s priorities regarding the well-being of American consumers and the interests of environmental lobbyists. A federal statute required power plants to maintain the "best technology available" (BTA) in order to limit the environmental impact of such plants on the wildlife located in nearby rivers and lakes. Sotomayor’s majority opinion held that while the EPA may consider the costs posed to power plants, the EPA could not use a cost-benefit analysis. Instead, the EPA must first determine the most effective technology that may "reasonably be borne by the industry.” Under this model, the costs would have amounted to $413 million and benefits would only come to $146 million. American consumers would then have been forced to pay billions of dollars more in energy costs every year. The Supreme Court granted writ of certiorari, and later, by a 6-3 margin, reversed Sotomayor’s holding on the grounds that her interpretation of “best technology available” was far too narrow. Hayden v. Pataki: Based on this case, Americans ought to be wary of Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s judgment in allowing convicted felons the right to vote while held in prison. In 2006, a number of New York inmates, included a convicted double cop killer, challenged that state’s law barring convicted felons from voting until they are released from prison or complete parole. The District Court had dismissed the case and the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed that ruling, holding that, “Congress did not intend or understand the Voting Rights Act to encompass” felon disenfranchisement statutes, such as that implement by New York. Judge Sotomayor dissented from the en banc majority ruling, claiming that the Voting Rights Act “applies to all ‘voting qualification[s].’” She also joined the dissent of Judge Barrington Daniels Parker, Jr, who held that the state law was in violation of the Voting Rights Act, in part, because “Blacks and Latinos are prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to incarceration at rates substantially disproportionate to those of Whites,” and thus diluted the voting strength of those communities. Based on her writings and judicial history, Americans ought to be wary of Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s fidelity to the mandate of the First Amendment’s freedom of speech and political expression. Judge Sotomayor’s writings dealing with campaign finance regulation are detailed, and a 1996 law review article entitled “Returning Majesty to the Law and Politics: A Modern Approach” in the Suffolk University Law Review demonstrates her prevailing attitude. The article, which she co-wrote with Nicole A. Gordon, asserted that “The continued failure to do this has greatly damaged public trust in officials and exacerbated the public's sense that no higher morality is in place by which public officials measure their conduct.” In footnotes, the article also called attention to the “subtle distinction between illegal bribes and legal campaign contributions to politicians,” and suggested “the replacement of federal election finance system with total public financing of congressional campaigns.” In addition, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in the 2006 case Landell v. Sorrell, held that a Vermont law limiting expenditures by candidates for office during the election cycle and on the contributions of individuals, political groups, and parties were constitutional. For example, national, state, and local parties together could give only $400 to a statewide candidate. The District Court held that limits on candidate expenditures were unconstitutional, in violation of the First Amendment, but found that the limits on campaign contributions were not in conflict with the First Amendment, or the Supreme Court’s precedent in Buckley v. Valeo, except for those dealing with political parties. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the District Court decision, ruling that all of Vermont's contribution limits were constitutional. Judge Sotomayor joined a concurrence written by Judges Sack and Katzmann in denying an en banc rehearing, and upholding the Circuit Court’s panel decision. The Supreme Court in Randall v. Sorrell reversed the Circuit Court and invalidated Vermont's law by a 6-3 vote, with Justice Stephen Breyer writing the plurality opinion. |
| Last Updated on Tuesday, 02 March 2010 17:03 |
Support APP
The American Principles Project is a 501(c)(3) public charity and donations are tax-deductible.
Find out more ways to support APP here.
APP Poll
Our Location
1420 K Street, NWSuite 300
Washington, DC 20005
Home 
Topics Law & Justice APP Backgrounder: Defining moments in Judge Sotomayor's career
Topics Law & Justice APP Backgrounder: Defining moments in Judge Sotomayor's career