Some Country for Old Men

The big news that is abso-freakin-lutely sweeping the nation right now has nothing to do with Michael Jackson. It also has nothing to do with Billy “Willie” Mays. It doesn’t even have anything to do with Bernie Madoff going to jail for a billion years. The big news is actually coming out of Washington, D.C. — our nation’s capital, if you will — and it’s coming from nine people wearing robes.

You see, apparently some firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were denied promotions recently, because all the Mexicans and people of colour were deemed insufficiently smart to handle the plum jobs (spraying the hose and greasing the pole) based on a test. So, being the smart white folks that they are, the firefighters started suing people.

What they didn’t count on happening, however, was that a wise Latina named Sonia Sotomayor would hear their case.

OH SNAP!

Sotomayor’s decision was a sassy slap in the face to the firefighters, and said that a test that only two Hispanics and no African-Americans passed was probably a bit unfair, and maybe not the best basis on which to hand out promotions.

Unhappy with Sotomayor’s wisdom, the firefighters continued their legal journey all the way to the Supreme Court. As is usually the case, this is where the law got all sexy.

The court overturned an earlier order that Sotomayor had endorsed as an appellate court judge, that upheld New Haven’s decision to throw out a promotion test it had given the firefighters when no African Americans and two Hispanics qualified for advancement. The 134-word order has been the flash point of much of the legal debate over Sotomayor’s nomination.

Conservatives wasted no time today in renewing their assaults on Sotomayor as a liberal judicial activist.

“The Supreme Court decision repudiating Judge Sotomayor’s legal position in this discrimination case raises important questions about Judge Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy,” said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice. He encouraged senators to explore “the nominee’s views on judicial activism” and her views of the Constitution at the confirmation hearings.

So what exactly does this strong repudiation look like? How tough was the Supreme Court on Sotomayor? They must’ve really stuck it to her, right?

Well, no. Actually, it was a 5-4 decision — a 5-4 decision in which all the conservatives stood on one side of the room wearing their perfectly-pressed shirts, and all the liberal hippies stood on the other side of the room, smoking their marijuana and eating Kashi cereal.

You see, really, it wasn’t a repudiation at all. In fact, the justice whom Sotomayor will be replacing – log cabin-dweller David Souter — came to the same conclusion as Sotomayor.

All we have to say is: thank goodness Sotomayor’s judicial activisim wasn’t allowed to stand! Thank goodness we won’t have to worry about the wide-ranging repercussions of a judicial decision! Thank goodness things got to stay the way they were (ie perfect…for white people)!

Wait, what?

Professor [Sheila] Foster of Fordham predicted on Monday that “this decision will change the landscape of civil rights law and casts continued doubt on the disparate impact theory of discrimination.”

Let’s be real for a second. Judicial activism really only happens when your team loses. Being overturned by a simple majority on ideological grounds doesn’t show Sotomayor is incapable of being a justice — just that she’s incapable of being one as AWESOME as this guy.

*We’re counting Clarence Thomas as white because he’s probably the only black guy in history who would’ve voted against civil rights.