Troy Davis has always maintained his innocence in the 1989 killing of Officer Mark MacPhail.

Bill Mears
CNN Supreme Court Producer

The Supreme Court has granted a condemned Georgia inmate's request that his execution be delayed as he attempts to prove his innocence.

The inmate, Troy Davis, has gained international support for his long-standing claim that he did not murder a Savannah police officer nearly two decades ago.

Justice John Paul Stevens on Monday ordered a federal judge to "receive testimony and make findings of fact as to whether evidence that could not have been obtained at trial clearly establishes petitioner's innocence."

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer supported the decision. Sonia Sotomayor, who was sworn in August 8 as the newest member of the high court, did not take part in the petition.

Davis' case has had a dramatic series of ups and downs in the past year. He was granted a stay of execution by the Supreme Court two hours before he was to be put to death last fall.

A month later, the justices reversed course and allowed the execution to proceed, but a federal appeals court then issued another stay.

The high court's latest ruling means Davis will continue to sit on death row.

Stevens said the risk of putting a potentially innocent man to death "provides adequate justification" for another evidentiary hearing.

His supporters in June delivered petitions bearing about 60,000 signatures to Chatham County, Georgia, District Attorney Larry Chisolm, calling for a new trial. Chisolm is the county's first African-American district attorney. Davis is also African-American.

Davis has always maintained his innocence in the 1989 killing of Officer Mark MacPhail. Witnesses said Davis, then 19, and two others were harassing a homeless man in a Burger King restaurant parking lot when the off-duty officer arrived to help the man. Witnesses testified at trial that Davis then shot MacPhail twice and fled.

Keep Reading...

The U.S. Senate confirmed Judge Sonia Sotomayor today, in a 68-31 vote.

Bill Mears
CNN Supreme Court Producer

With Sonia Sotomayor soon to fulfill her long-held dream to sit on the Supreme Court, she will have the prestige of joining the highest court in the land, lifetime job security, and a public forum as the first Hispanic on that bench.

Her formal swear-in will be Saturday morning at the high court, with Chief Justice John Roberts administering the judicial oath.

The 55-year-old judge now has the opportunity to become a influential force among her new colleagues, a legal pioneer who could help shape the law and its effect on society in any number of ways. But such a legacy will not come easily and it certainly will not come quickly. The internal dynamics of a body built on tradition and stability have long discouraged swift and sweeping forces that are regularly felt in the other branches of government, and society at large.

After her Thursday confirmation by the Senate, Sotomayor will become the junior justice, someone with the least seniority but no less authority than her eight benchmates. She brings with her a bit of history, and is sure to be the focus of public attention and political scrutiny.

"It's a step forward for the country. Having someone who's in a permanent lifetime appointment at the highest levels of the government who has this background, both economically and ethnically, is a big deal, it's a moment," said Thomas Goldstein, co-founder of ScotusBlog (at scotusblog.com) who has argued before the justices as a private attorney.

"The idea that a Democratic president did this and embraced them in this way will not be forgotten," he added.

After her swearing in, which will be attended by a small group of family and friends, Sotomayor will quickly set up shop in her high court chambers. She will have a staff of aides and secretaries, as well as four law clerks to help her jump into the caseload.

The urgency may be especially acute for her. The high court has scheduled an oral argument for an important campaign finance reform case for September 9, in the middle of its traditional summer recess, and almost a month before the justices normally begin their new term. She will have to cram in order to hear the case with her colleagues– no grace period or expanded learning curve.

Justice Stephen Breyer has said it took him a few years on the high court before he felt truly comfortable in the job, and he had already served as an appeals judge for 14 years before his elevation. It is a sentiment echoed by other justices on the high court - where the caseload, the pace of meeting deadlines, and the sheer enormity of the issues facing the court can seem initially overwhelming.

Her colleagues are sure to warmly welcome their newest member, but she will soon find herself on her own. A myth of the court is that the justices operate as a unified bunch. The reality is that they are like nine little kingdoms, free to rule - on the cases before them and in their own chambers - as they see fit. Their work entails lots of reading, researching, and writing - most of it alone in front of a computer, maybe a writing pad, even typewriter.

No wonder the seeming glamour of sitting on the Supreme Court often gives way to a sense of isolation and loneliness for new justices. "When you put on the black robe, the experience is sobering," the late Justice Lewis Powell once remarked. "It makes you more thoughtful."

Powell said the biggest surprise when he joined the high court was how the justices communicated about the cases. Memos, mostly formal in tone and presentation, remain the norm. Phone calls from one justice to another are relatively rare; personal visits to chambers even more unusual. E-mails are not embraced, even in the digital age.

But such interaction is key. After oral arguments on a case, the court votes on it, a justice is assigned at conference to write a majority opinion, another to write a dissent. The goal is to craft a majority ruling that will command the support of all the colleagues on a particular side, since that would create a unified front and make it easier to establish lasting precedent guiding future courts. That's where personal relationships matter.

Individual justices monitor what their colleagues are doing, collaborating to varying degrees on the language and scope of opinions, negotiating and engaging in a give-and-take. Sandra Day O'Connor in particular, before her retirement in 2006, was known inside the court for her backstage persuasiveness, while building a national persona as the first female justice.

"The justices learn about each other's views on the law and the Constitution, their strengths, their personalities," said Edward Lazarus, who wrote "Closed Chambers," an inside look at the court. "But that takes time. Justices Breyer and O'Connor became close colleagues on the bench because they discovered a similar approach to deciding cases, but that developed slowly over several years. Justices (Ruth Bader) Ginsburg and (Antonin) Scalia are very close personally - they have similar intellectual and musical interests - and you can't help but think that has helped bridge some disagreements in some cases, despite their deep differences on the law."

Developing and nurturing that trust among differing personalities is not easy. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once described Supreme Court deliberations as "nine scorpions in a bottle," fiercely protective in carving out their own agendas and power bases.

By all accounts, the current court as a group gets along very well personally. They like each other, and each can appreciate the diverse, often tough road each took to get to where they are. They all know how exclusive is the club to which they have gained entry, how random and unpredictable was their nomination.

Yet this remains a profoundly divided court ideologically. A shaky conservative majority - roughly four liberals and five conservatives, with Justice Anthony Kennedy often a swing vote - has produced a simmering tension inside the marble walls of the court. As a presumed member of the progressive faction, Sotomayor could find herself on the losing end of many a fight over hot-button issues in the near future, relegating her to writing dissents.

She will operate in the shadow of Justice John Paul Stevens – at 89, the oldest member of the court and the undisputed leader of his liberal colleagues. That authority is built on his nearly 40 years of seniority, his quiet skills as a tactician, and his sharp writing prowess. Many liberal legal activists hope Sotomayor eventually follows the O'Connor model in crafting a power base inside and outside the court.

As a group, the justices have wide experience. All served as federal appeals court judges, so they know well the intricacies of interpreting constitutional and legislative precedent. "They are well-prepared, active, informed, engaged, with tough questioning (of lawyers) from the bench," said David Garrow, a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and high court expert.

But the current court has by no means become a predictable group.

One vote can tip the delicate ideological balance. Of the 79 full opinions issued last term, 23 were 5-4 votes, or about 29 percent. Most involved major issues such as workplace discrimination, broadcast indecency and DNA testing.

Kennedy's views often proved decisive, and his influence remains undimmed.

Sotomayor will quickly discover the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts has not shied from taking on tough, timely cases. The fall 2009 docket includes appeals on religious displays on public land, Miranda rights, life sentences for underage criminals, and international child abductions.

This judicial confidence, said Garrow, gives "this court no second thoughts that it knows better than anyone else, especially the Congress, what is right."

Sotomayor will leave behind her family and friends in her native New York. She is not married, and observers say her work as a judge consumes much of her life. Colleagues say she has managed to find time for herself and pursue interests off the bench, but she has admitted that has not been an easy balance to maintain.

Lazarus, a former law clerk for Justice Harry Blackmun, remembered his former boss "carved out for himself a distinctly solitary existence. From 8 to 9 every morning, Blackmun would breakfast with us clerks in the court cafeteria," he remembered. "But as 9 o'clock approached, the justice's attitude and demeanor changed radically. As he shifted into work mode, Blackmun became unapproachable, a man consumed by a mantle of professional duty that fairly seemed to crush him."

While Blackmun was known by his colleagues for a prickly personality, his sense of struggling to live up to the responsibilities of the job rings familiar.

Sotomayor will bring a unique life experience - personally and professionally - to the job. She comes to it at a time of significant political and social change. The justice will have just one vote, and one voice. Whether she will thrive in the long run at her new home will depend to a large extent on her intellect, work ethic, and interpersonal skills.

But forces outside her control - namely the future ideological makeup of the court and the unforeseen hot-button issues that will confront her - will ultimately shape the legacy she will leave.

Former Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork said that the confirmation process is not a 'rational discussion.'

Gloria Borger
CNN Senior Political Analyst

In the past decade, it's become a given that Supreme Court nominees are expected to tell you - not to mention the senators actually voting on confirmation - absolutely nothing about how they will rule on the Supreme Court.

Think of it this way: a job interview without a hint of what the applicant would actually do on the job.

That's because back in 1987, when Judge Robert Bork came before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he did answer questions. He also came with a long, scholarly record that outlined an obviously conservative judicial philosophy. He lost. And he lost ugly.

Looking back, Bork told CNN's Campbell Brown this week, his honest approach was a big mistake.

"I think I could have been more intelligent in my approach and more aware of what was taking place," he said. "I kept responding to questions as if it was a rational discussion, which it wasn't. I think I would have taken that into account more if I were to do it over again."

Exactly.

It's no longer a 'rational discussion,' or even remotely candid. It's a game of hide-and-seek, a choreographed kabuki in which little is revealed. The nominee hides behind the notion of abiding by "precedent" - as if that's enough in applying for a job on the high court, which actually sets precedent.

Keep reading...

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor greets Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, Thursday.

Timothy P. O'Neill
Special to CNN

So what does the U.S. Supreme Court gain and lose by exchanging Justice David Souter for Sonia Sotomayor?

In Souter, it is losing a graduate of both an Ivy League college and law school; someone with law firm practice as a civil litigator as well as experience as a government prosecutor; a person known as a fine trial judge; and someone who came directly to the Supreme Court from a judgeship on the U.S. Court of Appeals. He is unmarried, childless, and known as a tireless worker.

If Sotomayor is confirmed, the Supreme Court will gain a graduate of both an Ivy League college and law school; someone with law firm practice as a civil litigator as well as experience as a government prosecutor; a person known as a fine trial judge; and someone who comes directly to the Supreme Court from a judgeship on the U.S. Court of Appeals. She is unmarried, childless, and known as a tireless worker.

Oh, and their last names both begin with the letter "S."

So will the change make any difference?

Read more...

Sotomayor won the Moses Taylor Pyne Prize, the highest honor given to an undergraduate at Princeton.

Elizabeth Landau
CNN

Sonia Sotomayor spent her first week at Princeton University obsessing over the sound of a cricket. Growing up in New York City, her only notion of this insect was Jiminy from "Pinocchio." She tore her dorm room apart looking for the critter every night.

Finally, her then-boyfriend and future husband visited and explained that the cricket was outside the room, where she had been holed up most of that week in 1972.

"This was all new to me: we didn't have trees brushing up against windows in the South Bronx," Sotomayor recalled in a speech to the Princeton Women's Network in 2002.

The freshman who was so taken aback by a cricket's chirping now has a more public challenge: Senate hearings on whether to confirm her as a Supreme Court justice, potentially the first Latina to hold such a post.

At one time, being different may have been difficult - for it wasn't just Princeton's crickets that startled Sotomayor. The academics and the students on the leafy Gothic campus, with its ivy-covered dormitories and castle-like towers, also made her feel out of place.

Keep reading...

At Princeton, Sotomayor co-founded the student group Accion Puertorriquena and spoke out about Latino issues.

Ruben Navarrette Jr.
Special to CNN

Sixteen years ago, after I wrote a memoir about my experience as a Latino in the Ivy League, I got a call from a retired Jewish obstetrician who saw his reflection in my words.

A book about being a Chicano at Harvard in the 1980s had stirred memories of being one of the few Jewish students at the University of Southern California in the 1930s.

Now, I feel like calling Sonia Sotomayor, although I realize that her schedule is crowded this week in light of the Senate confirmation hearings for the nominee to the Supreme Court.

I'd like Sotomayor to know that, even though she arrived at Princeton University in 1972 (the year I started kindergarten), I have a good idea what she went through in college - and, later, at Yale Law School - because many Latinos who later traveled that road experienced the same thing.

Keep reading

Judge Sonia Sotomayor speaks before the Senate Judiciary Committe on Tuesday, the second day of her hearings.

Laura E. Gómez
Special to CNN

It is likely that Judge Sotomayor will face some questions from members of the Senate Judiciary Committee this week about her 2001 "wise Latina" remark.

In a speech at a Berkeley conference on Hispanic judges, Sotomayor said, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Her comment has been lampooned on the cover of the National Review, where cartoonists apparently could not quite fathom a wise Latina judge, choosing to portray Sotomayor as a Buddha with Asian features. It has caused Rush Limbaugh and others to label her a "racist," and it has caused even liberals to bristle.

I was a speaker at the conference Sotomayor's speech kicked off, and I would like to put her comment in context.

Keep reading...

Anderson Cooper and President Obama walking around Cape Coast Castle.

Charly Feldman
AC360° Intern

Tonight on 360°, watch Anderson’s exclusive interview with President Obama in Ghana. They discuss everything from the economy to Afghanistan, the U.S. military’s “Don’t ask don’t tell” for gay service members and of course U.S. policy towards Africa.

We’ll take you on a tour of the dungeons of Cape Coast Castle with President Obama, to see where kidnapped Ghanaians awaited the horrifying boat rides to America just a couple of centuries ago. Greed and the slave trade triangle – all this and more on the program tonight.

But slavery isn’t just a thing of the past. Dr. Sanjay Gupta’s joins us from Haiti with a 360° dispatch on modern day slavery. It’s hard to imagine, but children as young as four years old are caught up in this vicious cycle. We’re digging deeper.

Plus, Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings began today at Capitol Hill, as the Senate Judiciary Committee discusses her abilities as a potential Supreme Court judge. From accusations of judicial activism to her controversial comment about being a “wise Latina”, Candy Crowley brings you the raw politics tonight, with senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.

Also, Randi Kaye joins us live from L.A. with the latest details on Michael Jackson’s death. His sister LaToya is speaking out. We’ll have her controversial account of what she believes happened to Michael. Was he murdered? Or, as Joe Jackson now suggests did the prospects of his London concerts burn him out? Plus, we’re following the money trail. Tune in to 360° for the answer to these questions.

Join us at 10pm ET for all this and much more! See you then.

Sonia Sotomayor appears to view the Constitution much like retired Justice David Souter did.

Jeffrey Toobin
CNN Senior Analyst

One of the enduring myths about Supreme Court justices is that they often turn out to "surprise" the presidents who appoint them. Sure-thing conservatives, it is said, turn out to be liberals, ­and vice versa. In fact, the evidence is almost entirely the opposite: that with justices, as in life, what you see is what you get.

The question, then, is this: What do you see when you look at Sonia Sotomayor, who begins her confirmation hearings as a strong favorite for confirmation?

She is, above all, a veteran judge ­who has 18 years on the federal bench: six as a trial judge (appointed by President George H.W. Bush) and the rest on the court of appeals (appointed by President Clinton). The question of competence is closed. Sotomayor can do the job. It's no surprise that she received a unanimous rating of well-qualified from the American Bar Association screening committee.

But what would she stand for as a Supreme Court justice? She is, it seems, a liberal,­ but a liberal in the cautious and careful mode of her likely future colleagues Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

Keep reading...

Judge Sonia Sotomayor

Angelo Falcón
Special to CNN

The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States has raised the profile of Puerto Ricans in the American consciousness.

Her identification as a Puerto Rican has caused Judge Sotomayor both joy and a little grief during this stormy nomination process. But, being a Puerto Rican who also grew up in New York City, well, I can say that's par for the course for most of us.

Despite Puerto Rico being a possession of the United States since 1898, most Americans know very little about the island and Puerto Ricans - except for tourism commercials. Many consider Puerto Ricans living in the United States outside of Puerto Rico (I called these "Stateside Puerto Ricans") another new immigrant group of Latinos.

But the reality is that we can trace Puerto Rican settlements in New Orleans to the 1860s and workers from Puerto Rico migrated to Hawaii around 1900. In 1917, through an act of the United States Congress (the Jones Act), the people of Puerto Rico were made United States citizens, enabling them to come to the United States freely and legally without passport or visa.

Keep reading...

Critics warn confirmation hearings for Judge Sonia Sotomayor could turn into a partisan battle.

Bill Mears
CNN Supreme Court Producer

These rulings or cases are from Sonia Sotomayor's service as a trial judge on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Manhattan), from 1992-98; and most prominently, an appeals judge on the U-S Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, from 1998. That New York City-based court handles appeals from New York, Connecticut, and Vermont.

Most federal appeals are heard by a three-judge panel that changes from case to case, from a larger pool of full-time judges, which in the 2nd Circuit numbers 12. A particular panel normally hears oral arguments, and has the option of issuing a full opinion. Sotomayor wrote opinions in many of the appeals listed below, but not all. In some bigger cases, the full circuit court will re-hear a case.

1. WORKPLACE DISCRIMINATION – Ricci v. Stefano (2008)

• AT ISSUE: "Reverse" discrimination claim over a city's duty to carry out the results of employment tests even if they reduce job opportunities for minority workers. New Haven, CT officials used their discretion to decline certifying results of exams for promotions that would make disproportionately more whites eligible for promotions than minority applicants. City was concerned certifying them would lead to allegations of racial discrimination. Involves 20 firefighters led by white plaintiff Frank Ricci who sued after being denied promotion to lieutenant.
• HOW SHE RULED: Upheld rejection of the white firefighters' lawsuit, but the three-judge panel she was a part did not issue a full explanation of their decision, drawing criticism from other judges.
• QUOTE FROM ORAL ARGUMENT: "We're not suggesting that unqualified people be hired..." but "if your test is going to always put a certain group at the bottom of the pass rate so they're never, ever going to be promoted, and there is a fair test that could be devised that measures knowledge in a more substantive way, then why shouldn't the city have an opportunity to try to look and see if it can develop that?"
• IMPACT: Her ruling was overturned by the Supreme Court June 27, 2009.

2. ENVIRONMENT – Riverkeeper v. EPA (2007)

• AT ISSUE: Whether the Clean Water Act allows the EPA to use a cost-benefit analysis when approving the most environmentally friendly technology at cooling water intake structures. Her appeals court said companies must adopt the best technology available, a standard utility companies say would prove too costly.
• HOW SHE RULED: 2nd Circuit opinion was written by Sotomayor, who ruled for the environmental groups. Supreme Court reversed.
• QUOTE FROM HER RULING: "Congress has already specified the relationship between cost and benefits in requiring that the technology designated by the EPA be the best available."

3. FEDERAL LAWSUIT LIABILITY – Makeso v. Correctional Services Corp. (2000)

• AT ISSUE: Do lawsuits against the government extend to federal contractors. A federal prisoner sued a contractor running the facility because guards allegedly made him climb stairs, despite knowing he had a heart condition. He later had a heart attack when falling down stairs, also suffering other injuries. The man was in a halfway house for securities fraud.
• HOW SHE RULED: The appeals panel on which she sat ruled for the man. In her opinion, she concluded, under a 1971 Scotus precedent, companies performing government functions could be sued the same as federal employees. The high court reversed, saying only individual employees, not corporations, could be sued for any such violations.
• QUOTE FROM HER RULING: "Extending Bivens [previous high court precedent] liability to reach private corporations furthers [its] overriding purposes: providing redress for violations of constitutional rights."

4. DISABILITIES – Bartlett v. NY State Board of Law Examiners (1999)

• AT ISSUE: Workplace discrimination claim over whether a person with learning and reading disability deserved extra time to take her bar exams.
• HOW SHE RULED: Favored the woman and ordered the state to accommodate, saying test scores alone were not enough to determine a disability diagnosis. Supreme Court ordered the court to re-examine the issue, concluding that if someone is able to function like others with the help of glasses, medication, or otherwise compensating for their disabilities, they were not protected under the ADA. Upon reexamining the case, Sotomayor and her fellow judges again ruled for the woman.
• QUOTE FROM HER RULING: "By its very nature, diagnosing a learning disability requires clinical judgment."

5. STRIP SEARCHES – N.G. and S.G. v. Connecticut (2004)

• AT ISSUE: Did administrators have proper discretion to conduct a strip search on female students? Involves searches of girls at juvenile detention centers in Connecticut.
• HOW SHE RULED: She dissented from two male colleagues, who found some searches were legal, thereby shielding school officials from liability. The Supreme Court is currently deciding a similar case from Arizona involving a 13-year-old girl strip searched by officials looking for ibuprofen.
• QUOTES FROM HER DISSENT: Searches were "embarrassing and humiliating. The officials inspected the girls' naked bodies front and back, and had them lift their breasts and spread out folds of fat." Criticized the other judges who she said dismissed "the privacy interests of emotionally troubled children." "Our caselaw consistently has recognized the severely intrusive nature of strip searches and has placed strict limits on their use."

6. SECOND AMENDMENT – Maloney v. Cuomo (2009)

• AT ISSUE: Does a state ban on certain types of weapons violate the Second Amendment?
• HOW SHE RULED: She rejected a lawsuit from a man who wanted to possess a martial arts weapon called a nunchuka, made of two sticks joined by chain or rope. Sotomayor said the Second Amendment "right of the people to keep and bear arms" applied only to the federal government, and had not yet been applied to states.
• QUOTE FROM HER RULING: "The Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right."
• IMPACT: In a separate 2004 ruling (U.S. v. Sanchez Villar) that rejected a challenge to New York state's pistol licensing law, Sotomayor and her fellow judges concluded in a footnote, "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."

7. FREE SPEECH – Pappas v. Giuliani (2002)

• AT ISSUE: Was it proper to fire a government worker for engaging in allegedly racist acts on the job, but unrelated to his job? NYPD desk employee was sent packing for mailing back solicitations for charitable contributions with racist and bigoted materials.
• HOW SHE RULED: The appeals court concluded the city had the right to terminate the man without violating his free speech rights. But Sotomayor dissented, saying the employee's speech was anonymous, and that he was neither a policymaker nor worked a beat.
• QUOTE FROM HER DISSENT: While the speech was "patently offensive, hateful, and insulting," she cautioned the majority against "gloss[ing] over three decades of jurisprudence and the centrality of First Amendment freedoms in our lives just because it is confronted with speech is does not like." The NYPD's race relations concerns "are so removed from the effective functioning of the public employer that they cannot prevail over the free speech rights of the public employee."

Lucas A. Powe Jr.
Special to CNN

Monday, in the much anticipated New Haven, Connecticut, firefighters' case, the Supreme Court reversed an opinion joined by Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama's Supreme Court nominee.

The reversal was expected and is not the first time an appointee has been reversed by the court he was about to join.

Indeed, two of Chief Justice Warren Burger's opinions for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals were reversed in 1969, the year he joined the court. One was Watts v. United States, in which the defendant had been convicted for threatening the life of the president.

Keep reading...

Harry Reid
For The Miami Herald

Some slivers of my past: A dust storm. A one-room schoolhouse. The teacher who gave me boxing gloves.

This imagery might not evoke of the U.S. Senate, but it represents experiences that have shaped me as a person, and by consequence a U.S. senator. Abraham Lincoln's childhood in a cabin shaped his character as a future president. Thurgood Marshall's elementary school teachers would have never guessed that punishing him to copy the Constitution would inspire him to live by that document.

Unfortunately, many commentators have taken some phrases from some of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's past speeches to say that she will rule based on a perceived ethnic agenda.

All of these folks ignore the spirit of her words: Our life experiences shape us.

Do these experiences completely dictate how we conduct ourselves? Of course not. Last week I had the pleasure of meeting her. I came away convinced that Sotomayor has always been guided by, above all else, the rule of law. But her background has given her an insight into how an abstract ruling can affect the daily lives of millions.

Keep reading...

Editor's note: Tune in to AC 360º tonight at 10 P.M. ET to hear what Lt. Dan Choi, Iraq veteran, gay rights activist and opponent of 'don't ask/don't tell', has to say about the Supreme Court's rejection of the recent appeal.

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to intervene in the challenge to the don't ask/don't tell law.

Bill Mears
CNN Supreme Court Producer

A former Army captain who was dismissed under a federal law dealing with gays and lesbians in the military lost his appeal Monday at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Pietrangelo was the only one who appealed to the high court, but the justices without comment refused to intervene.

The provision forbids those in the military from openly acknowledging or revealing their homosexuality, and prevents the government from asking individual soldiers and sailors about their sexual orientation.

The Obama administration had asked the high court not to take the case, and White House officials had said they would not object to homosexuals being kicked out of the armed services.

During the presidential campaign last year, President Obama said he supported throwing out the federal law but has taken no specific action on the controversy.

The Justice Department said in a high court filing the law was "rationally related to the government's legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion."

Read more...

Gloria Borger
CNN Senior Political Analyst

After initially waiting a few nanoseconds to call Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor a racist - not to mention advising that she just ought to withdraw from consideration - Newt Gingrich has had a sudden change of heart.

Or at least vocabulary.

In the conservative magazine Human Events, he writes on Wednesday: "My initial reaction was strong and direct - perhaps too strong and too direct. ... Since then, some who want to have an open and honest consideration of Judge Sotomayor's fitness to serve on the nation's highest court have been critical of my word choice. ... The word 'racist' should not have been applied to Judge Sotomayor as a person, even if her words themselves are unacceptable."

An apology from Newt? And one that contains a string of thoughts too long to Twitter? How can that be?

It seems as if poor Gingrich found himself the target of his own Republican Party. Some of the more serious folks in the Senate had been trying to figure out what kind of a jurist Sotomayor might be, when Newt and Rush Limbaugh decided to morph into Thelma and Louise.

Their favorite topic? Sotomayor's now infamous statement that, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Foolish, yes. Self-serving, sure.

But Gingrich and Co. just couldn't leave it at that. Personal name-calling is just so much more fun - and attention-getting. So she became a racist (even a reverse racist), in their words.

Keep reading...

Judge Sonia Sotomayor appears Tuesday on Capitol Hill with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, right.

Cynthia Gordy
Essence

Anita Hill will always be linked to the Senate confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court. In 1991, she gave an explosive testimony during the confirmation of Justice Clarence Thomas that forced a generation of women to stand up against sexual harassment. On the cusp of the Senate hearing for President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, Hill, today a professor of law at Brandeis University, talked to ESSENCE.com about Sotomayor, a former classmate of hers at Yale Law School, and the legacy of her Senate Judiciary testimony all these years later.

ESSENCE.COM: What do you think of Sonia Sotomayor as a Supreme Court nominee?
ANITA HILL: I think it's an excellent choice, just on the face of the selection. Here's a person who has years of experience on the bench, and has distinguished herself in private practice as well, and has been a prosecutor. I think she's got an incredible breadth of experience. Clearly she's an exceptional mind, having done very well at her undergraduate school, Princeton, and law school at Yale. But that's just the beginning. There are other things that I think make her a great choice.

Read more...

Lanny Davis
The Washington Post

Suppose a black female nurse is seriously injured during her work at a hospital and is forced to take a medical leave of absence. When she returns almost a year later, she reapplies for new jobs but doesn't get any offers of comparable salary and seniority. For one of the jobs for which she was turned down, two white women with disabilities are chosen. For another job for which she was rejected, a younger white male is hired.

So how did Judge Sonia Sotomayor rule? The ultra-right talk-show hosts who spent all last week attacking the judge as a "liberal activist" or even a "racist" would surely predict that she would have ruled in favor of this sympathetic black female with a severe disability.

They would have been wrong.

Read Judge Sotomayor's 11-page published opinion, on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in the case of Norville v. Staten Island University Hospital. The case, decided Nov. 3, 1999, can be found in the published federal court decision reports at 196 F.3d 89.

She found no race or age discrimination and voted for a new trial on the disability claim because of legally erroneous jury instructions.

Read more...

Editor's Note: Federal Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor, nominated by President Obama on May 26, 2009, to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, delivered this talk on Oct. 26, 2001, as the Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture. She spoke at a UC Berkeley School of Law symposium titled "Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation." The symposium was co-hosted by the La Raza Law Journal, the Berkeley La Raza Law Students Association, the Boalt Hall Center for Social Justice, and the Center for Latino Policy Research. The text below is from the archives of the La Raza Law Journal.

Judge Sotomayor grew up in a South Bronx housing project and graduated from Princeton University and Yale Law School. She was a former prosecutor in the office of the District Attorney in Manhattan and an associate and then partner in the New York law firm of Pavia & Harcourt. She was also a member of the Puerto Rico Legal Defense and Education Fund. Nominated to the Second Circuit in 1997, she became the first Latina nominated to sit on a federal appellate court.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor's 2001 address to the 'Raising the Bar' symposium at the UC Berkeley School of Law

Judge Reynoso, thank you for that lovely introduction. I am humbled to be speaking behind a man who has contributed so much to the Hispanic community. I am also grateful to have such kind words said about me.

I am delighted to be here. It is nice to escape my hometown for just a little bit. It is also nice to say hello to old friends who are in the audience, to rekindle contact with old acquaintances and to make new friends among those of you in the audience. It is particularly heart warming to me to be attending a conference to which I was invited by a Latina law school friend, Rachel Moran, who is now an accomplished and widely respected legal scholar. I warn Latinos in this room: Latinas are making a lot of progress in the old-boy network.

I am also deeply honored to have been asked to deliver the annual Judge Mario G. Olmos lecture. I am joining a remarkable group of prior speakers who have given this lecture. I hope what I speak about today continues to promote the legacy of that man whose commitment to public service and abiding dedication to promoting equality and justice for all people inspired this memorial lecture and the conference that will follow. I thank Judge Olmos' widow Mary Louise's family, her son and the judge's many friends for hosting me. And for the privilege you have bestowed on me in honoring the memory of a very special person. If I and the many people of this conference can accomplish a fraction of what Judge Olmos did in his short but extraordinary life we and our respective communities will be infinitely better.

I intend tonight to touch upon the themes that this conference will be discussing this weekend and to talk to you aboutmy Latina identity, where it came from, and the influence I perceive it has on my presence on the bench.

Who am I? I am a "Newyorkrican." For those of you on the West Coast who do not know what that term means: I am a born and bred New Yorker of Puerto Rican-born parents who came to the states during World War II.

Like many other immigrants to this great land, my parents came because of poverty and to attempt to find and secure a better life for themselves and the family that they hoped to have. They largely succeeded. For that, my brother and I are very grateful. The story of that success is what made me and what makes me the Latina that I am. The Latina side of my identity was forged and closely nurtured by my family through our shared experiences and traditions.

For me, a very special part of my being Latina is the mucho platos de arroz, gandoles y pernir – rice, beans and pork – that I have eaten at countless family holidays and special events. My Latina identity also includes, because of my particularly adventurous taste buds, morcilla, - pig intestines, patitas de cerdo con garbanzo - pigs' feet with beans, and la lengua y orejas de cuchifrito, pigs' tongue and ears. I bet the Mexican-Americans in this room are thinking that Puerto Ricans have unusual food tastes. Some of us, like me, do. Part of my Latina identity is the sound of merengue at all our family parties and the heart wrenching Spanish love songs that we enjoy. It is the memory of Saturday afternoon at the movies with my aunt and cousins watching Cantinflas, who is not Puerto Rican, but who was an icon Spanish comedian on par with Abbot and Costello of my generation. My Latina soul was nourished as I visited and played at my grandmother's house with my cousins and extended family. They were my friends as I grew up. Being a Latina child was watching the adults playing dominos on Saturday night and us kids playing lotería, bingo, with my grandmother calling out the numbers which we marked on our cards with chick peas.

Now, does any one of these things make me a Latina? Obviously not because each of our Caribbean and Latin American communities has their own unique food and different traditions at the holidays. I only learned about tacos in college from my Mexican-American roommate. Being a Latina in America also does not mean speaking Spanish. I happen to speak it fairly well. But my brother, only three years younger, like too many of us educated here, barely speaks it. Most of us born and bred here, speak it very poorly.

If I had pursued my career in my undergraduate history major, I would likely provide you with a very academic description of what being a Latino or Latina means. For example, I could define Latinos as those peoples and cultures populated or colonized by Spain who maintained or adopted Spanish or Spanish Creole as their language of communication. You can tell that I have been very well educated. That antiseptic description however, does not really explain the appeal of morcilla – pig's intestine – to an American born child. It does not provide an adequate explanation of why individuals like us, many of whom are born in this completely different American culture, still identify so strongly with those communities in which our parents were born and raised.

America has a deeply confused image of itself that is in perpetual tension. We are a nation that takes pride in our ethnic diversity, recognizing its importance in shaping our society and in adding richness to its existence. Yet, we simultaneously insist that we can and must function and live in a race and color-blind way that ignore these very differences that in other contexts we laud. That tension between "the melting pot and the salad bowl" - a recently popular metaphor used to described New York's diversity – is being hotly debated today in national discussions about affirmative action. Many of us struggle with this tension and attempt to maintain and promote our cultural and ethnic identities in a society that is often ambivalent about how to deal with its differences. In this time of great debate we must remember that it is not political struggles that create a Latino or Latina identity. I became a Latina by the way I love and the way I live my life. My family showed me by their example how wonderful and vibrant life is and how wonderful and magical it is to have a Latina soul. They taught me to love being a Puerto Riqueña and to love America and value its lesson that great things could be achieved if one works hard for it. But achieving success here is no easy accomplishment for Latinos or Latinas, and although that struggle did not and does not create a Latina identity, it does inspire how I live my life.

I was born in the year 1954. That year was the fateful year in which Brown v. Board of Education was decided. When I was eight, in 1961, the first Latino, the wonderful Judge Reynaldo Garza, was appointed to the federal bench, an event we are celebrating at this conference. When I finished law school in 1979, there were no women judges on the Supreme Court or on the highest court of my home state, New York. There was then only one Afro-American Supreme Court Justice and then and now no Latino or Latina justices on our highest court. Now in the last twenty plus years of my professional life, I have seen a quantum leap in the representation of women and Latinos in the legal profession and particularly in the judiciary. In addition to the appointment of the first female United States Attorney General, Janet Reno, we have seen the appointment of two female justices to the Supreme Court and two female justices to the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court of my home state. One of those judges is the Chief Judge and the other is a Puerto Riqueña, like I am. As of today, women sit on the highest courts of almost all of the states and of the territories, including Puerto Rico. One Supreme Court, that of Minnesota, had a majority of women justices for a period of time.

As of September 1, 2001, the federal judiciary consisting of Supreme, Circuit and District Court Judges was about 22% women. In 1992, nearly ten years ago, when I was first appointed a District Court Judge, the percentage of women in the total federal judiciary was only 13%. Now, the growth of Latino representation is somewhat less favorable. As of today we have, as I noted earlier, no Supreme Court justices, and we have only 10 out of 147 active Circuit Court judges and 30 out of 587 active district court judges. Those numbers are grossly below our proportion of the population. As recently as 1965, however, the federal bench had only three women serving and only one Latino judge. So changes are happening, although in some areas, very slowly. These figures and appointments are heartwarming. Nevertheless, much still remains to happen.

Let us not forget that between the appointments of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in 1981 and Justice Ginsburg in 1992, eleven years passed. Similarly, between Justice Kaye's initial appointment as an Associate Judge to the New York Court of Appeals in 1983, and Justice Ciparick's appointment in 1993, ten years elapsed. Almost nine years later, we are waiting for a third appointment of a woman to both the Supreme Court and the New York Court of Appeals and of a second minority, male or female, preferably Hispanic, to the Supreme Court. In 1992 when I joined the bench, there were still two out of 13 circuit courts and about 53 out of 92 district courts in which no women sat. At the beginning of September of 2001, there are women sitting in all 13 circuit courts. The First, Fifth, Eighth and Federal Circuits each have only one female judge, however, out of a combined total number of 48 judges. There are still nearly 37 district courts with no women judges at all. For women of color the statistics are more sobering. As of September 20, 1998, of the then 195 circuit court judges only two were African-American women and two Hispanic women. Of the 641 district court judges only twelve were African-American women and eleven Hispanic women. African-American women comprise only 1.56% of the federal judiciary and Hispanic-American women comprise only 1%. No African-American, male or female, sits today on the Fourth or Federal circuits. And no Hispanics, male or female, sit on the Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, District of Columbia or Federal Circuits.

Sort of shocking, isn't it? This is the year 2002. We have a long way to go. Unfortunately, there are some very deep storm warnings we must keep in mind. In at least the last five years the majority of nominated judges the Senate delayed more than one year before confirming or never confirming were women or minorities. I need not remind this audience that Judge Paez of your home Circuit, the Ninth Circuit, has had the dubious distinction of having had his confirmation delayed the longest in Senate history. These figures demonstrate that there is a real and continuing need for Latino and Latina organizations and community groups throughout the country to exist and to continue their efforts of promoting women and men of all colors in their pursuit for equality in the judicial system.

This weekend's conference, illustrated by its name, is bound to examine issues that I hope will identify the efforts and solutions that will assist our communities. The focus of my speech tonight, however, is not about the struggle to get us where we are and where we need to go but instead to discuss with you what it all will mean to have more women and people of color on the bench. The statistics I have been talking about provide a base from which to discuss a question which one of my former colleagues on the Southern District bench, Judge Miriam Cederbaum, raised when speaking about women on the federal bench. Her question was: What do the history and statistics mean? In her speech, Judge Cederbaum expressed her belief that the number of women and by direct inference people of color on the bench, was still statistically insignificant and that therefore we could not draw valid scientific conclusions from the acts of so few people over such a short period of time. Yet, we do have women and people of color in more significant numbers on the bench and no one can or should ignore pondering what that will mean or not mean in the development of the law. Now, I cannot and do not claim this issue as personally my own. In recent years there has been an explosion of research and writing in this area. On one of the panels tomorrow, you will hear the Latino perspective in this debate.

For those of you interested in the gender perspective on this issue, I commend to you a wonderful compilation of articles published on the subject in Vol. 77 of the Judicature, the Journal of the American Judicature Society of November-December 1993. It is on Westlaw/Lexis and I assume the students and academics in this room can find it.

Now Judge Cedarbaum expresses concern with any analysis of women and presumably again people of color on the bench, which begins and presumably ends with the conclusion that women or minorities are different from men generally. She sees danger in presuming that judging should be gender or anything else based. She rightly points out that the perception of the differences between men and women is what led to many paternalistic laws and to the denial to women of the right to vote because we were described then "as not capable of reasoning or thinking logically" but instead of "acting intuitively." I am quoting adjectives that were bandied around famously during the suffragettes' movement.

While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society. Whatever the reasons why we may have different perspectives, either as some theorists suggest because of our cultural experiences or as others postulate because we have basic differences in logic and reasoning, are in many respects a small part of a larger practical question we as women and minority judges in society in general must address. I accept the thesis of a law school classmate, Professor Steven Carter of Yale Law School, in his affirmative action book that in any group of human beings there is a diversity of opinion because there is both a diversity of experiences and of thought. Thus, as noted by another Yale Law School Professor - I did graduate from there and I am not really biased except that they seem to be doing a lot of writing in that area - Professor Judith Resnik says that there is not a single voice of feminism, not a feminist approach but many who are exploring the possible ways of being that are distinct from those structured in a world dominated by the power and words of men. Thus, feminist theories of judging are in the midst of creation and are not and perhaps will never aspire to be as solidified as the established legal doctrines of judging can sometimes appear to be.

That same point can be made with respect to people of color. No one person, judge or nominee will speak in a female or people of color voice. I need not remind you that Justice Clarence Thomas represents a part but not the whole of African-American thought on many subjects. Yet, because I accept the proposition that, as Judge Resnik describes it, "to judge is an exercise of power" and because as, another former law school classmate, Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School, states "there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives - no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging," I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that - it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. Not all women or people of color, in all or some circumstances or indeed in any particular case or circumstance but enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging. The Minnesota Supreme Court has given an example of this. As reported by Judge Patricia Wald formerly of the D.C. Circuit Court, three women on the Minnesota Court with two men dissenting agreed to grant a protective order against a father's visitation rights when the father abused his child. The Judicature Journal has at least two excellent studies on how women on the courts of appeal and state supreme courts have tended to vote more often than their male counterpart to uphold women's claims in sex discrimination cases and criminal defendants' claims in search and seizure cases. As recognized by legal scholars, whatever the reason, not one woman or person of color in any one position but as a group we will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.

In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.

I also hope that by raising the question today of what difference having more Latinos and Latinas on the bench will make will start your own evaluation. For people of color and women lawyers, what does and should being an ethnic minority mean in your lawyering? For men lawyers, what areas in your experiences and attitudes do you need to work on to make you capable of reaching those great moments of enlightenment which other men in different circumstances have been able to reach. For all of us, how do change the facts that in every task force study of gender and race bias in the courts, women and people of color, lawyers and judges alike, report in significantly higher percentages than white men that their gender and race has shaped their careers, from hiring, retention to promotion and that a statistically significant number of women and minority lawyers and judges, both alike, have experienced bias in the courtroom?

Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.

There is always a danger embedded in relative morality, but since judging is a series of choices that we must make, that I am forced to make, I hope that I can make them by informing myself on the questions I must not avoid asking and continuously pondering. We, I mean all of us in this room, must continue individually and in voices united in organizations that have supported this conference, to think about these questions and to figure out how we go about creating the opportunity for there to be more women and people of color on the bench so we can finally have statistically significant numbers to measure the differences we will and are making.

I am delighted to have been here tonight and extend once again my deepest gratitude to all of you for listening and letting me share my reflections on being a Latina voice on the bench. Thank you.

Bill Mears
CNN Supreme Court Senior Producer

An example of how one court’s old ruling in a case can have current legal and political implications, especially for a Supreme Court nominee.

Judge Sotomayor heard a case in 2000 dealing with child custody disputes and international law. A woman who had sole custody of her daughter Christina took the child from Hong Kong to New York, and the divorced father went to court. He argued a custody order signed at the time of the divorce from Hong Kong prevented removal of the child to another country without his consent.

At issue was whether this custody order—called a “ne exeat clause” to all you lawyers– created a right of custody enforceable under the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction. In the first time a federal court ruled on this issue, the Second Circuit U-S Court of Appeals concluded the child’s removal was legal, since the father did not possess rights of custody under the international law. The court also said such custody orders are limited since the mother had "custody, care, and control" of the child, and thus the sole right to determine Christina's place of residence.

Sotomayor dissented, saying that the court majority too narrowly interpreted the impact of the custody order, and that such orders constitute a right of custody. The case was Croll v. Croll and the Supreme Court eventually refused to examine the issue, keeping in place the 2nd Circuit opinion.

Fast forward to 2009 and a nearly identical case the high court is currently considering. In Abbott v. Abbott (08-645) the father, a British citizen had married an American. They eventually moved to Chile but then separated. She gained custody then secretly took the boy to Texas. He filed a claim in federal court. The federal government was asked to weigh in on the issue and today filed its brief with the high court, arguing what Sotomayor articulated nearly a decade ago: that custody orders do constitute a right of custody for international law purposes. A federal appeals court in New Orleans in this case agreed the father had no right to contest the removal under the “ne exeat” clause. But other circuit courts, as well as international courts, are split on the issue, making it ripe for Supreme Court review.

The justices will decide in late June whether to accept the Abbott case. If they do as many legal experts predict, the appeal would be heard later this year, when Sotomayor might be on the bench.

Bill Mears
CNN Supreme Court Senior Producer

Quite a bit of talk today about ‘”empathy” and whether that is a desirable quality in a judge/justice. Is there a pattern in Sotomayor’s rulings that would signal such sympathies? Here are samples from my research…

Cases where "empathy" or lack of it could be cited by opponents:

2000 – Ruled partly in favor of Yvette Cruz, Hispanic woman who alleged a co-worker at Coach Stores made lewd remarks and subjected her to sexual harassment. Upheld the harassment claims, but Sotomayor rejected the woman's claims she was fired because of her ethnicity.

2001 – She sided with a federal prisoner who sued a contractor running the facility because guards allegedly made him climb stairs, despite knowing he had a heart condition. He later had a heart attack. The man was in a halfway house for securities fraud. Sotomayor concluded, under her reading of a 1971 Scotus precedent, contractors could be sued the same as federal employees. Scotus later reversed.

2005 – Judge allowed a class action suit by Merrill Lynch shareholders who alleged fraud by company officials. Scotus in 2006 unanimously overturned, concluding federal law gave enforcement power to SEC, leaving no venue for lawsuits under state fraud laws.

On the other hand:

In King v. American Airlines in 2002, she ruled against a black couple who claimed they were kicked off their flight because of their race. Sotomayor said the case was pre-empted by international law governing air travel.

Ruled against Wendy Norville a black nurse in 1999 who claimed workplace discrimination after being fired. The worker said her age, race and a debilitating injury were the result. Sotomayor threw out the race and age claims, but allowed the claim on disability to proceed to trial.

In 2006 she ruled against investors who claimed Wall Street Banks were price-fixing IPOs. She agreed with the majority the class-action could not proceed, nullifying earlier settlements that would have benefited investors to the tune of $1 billion.

Bottom line: I found no obvious pattern in her rulings suggesting that she is consistently or overly sympathetic to “the little” guy, or any particular gender, race, ethnicity, etc. Her off-the-bench speeches/remarks reveal personal thoughts that some might find objectionable, but her rulings do not reveal an overt bias.