White House

It's time to play Fill That Supreme Court Seat, and cable TV's "Democratic insiders" and "GOP strategists" are already blabbing and bloviating about Obama's pick, Judge Sonia Sotomayor. To help the pundits (but, ultimately, the bloggers, and maybe even, you know, the senators confirming her or at least you, dear reader) wade through the legalese, we've assembled a microcosmic dossier of Sotomayor decisions, complete with over-the-top talking points for both sides of the aisle.

The Pro-Labor Yankee Fan: Silverman v. Major League Baseball Player Relations Committee (1995)

The National Labor Relations Board, on behalf of the Major League Baseball Players Association, filed suit against MLB club owners during the strike of 1994-1995. The players aimed to reinstate bargaining points that the owners had removed from contract negotiations. Judge Sotomayor ordered the players and owners to restart negotiations with the bargaining points back on the table, effectively ending the strike that threatened to destroy baseball as we know it. She took a broad, pro-labor interpretation of the National Labor Relations Act. "This strike has placed the entire concept of collective bargaining on trial," Sotomayor wrote in her opinion.

Why She's Brilliant

The case indicates Sotomayor's willingness to give labor the benefit of the doubt, to protect fair collective bargaining, to take on powerful, power-grabbing interests, yada yada yada. All good stuff. Here's what it really shows: She's got the stones to step up and be a national hero when duty calls. Which will come in handy when that Scalia scoundrel tries to lurch the country toward fascism.

Why She's a Lunatic

Yeah, she saved baseball. Whatever. If this had been Silverman v. National Badminton Players Federation, we all would have yawned. Look beyond the populism and you'll find a judge who buddies up to unions at every turn, no matter the consequences. Oh, and you can toss her claims of impartiality out the window at trial, she admitted to being a lifelong Yankees fan.

Jonathan Daniel/Getty Images

After New York City terminated its contracts with the nonprofit agency HANAC because of alleged corruption, the organization challenged the city's right to do so. Judge Sotomayor found that the city could not transfer the contracts to other nonprofits without offering the agency a formal hearing, basing her decision on city rules. "This one troubles me," she said in the court hearing, raising questions "about whether the Mayor had inappropriately, or even unconstitutionally, injected himself into the contracting process," perhaps to divert attention from a city official's own alleged corruption. In her opinion, Sotomayor noted that HANAC was initially not told about the order that had effectively terminated its contracts. She also discussed the harm to HANAC's reputation that may have resulted from the cancellation of the contracts.

Why She's Brilliant

The case shows Sotomayor's evergreen willingness to stand up to bloated government officials who bend the rules when there is benefit to be reaped. Her decision itself was based on a crystal-clear violation of city rules, but she notes other ways in which city officials acted like assholes: concealing news of the contract severance from HANAC, for example. She doesn't coldly ignore those little contextual nuggets; she incorporates them.

Why She's a Lunatic

Sotomayor was so eager to rule against the Giuliani administration that she overlooked an obvious roadblock: as a federal judge, she had no jurisdiction to hear the case. An appeals court later ruled that the case belonged in the state court system. Sotomayor should never have delivered a verdict. This leaves two disturbing options: either she doesn't understand the difference between a federal and state court, or she knew she didn't have jurisdiction, but was so "troubled" that she thought she could sneak this one through.

The Protector of the Homeless: Archie v. Grand Central Partnership (1998)

Darek Niedzieski/iStock

Homeless advocates charged that a community partnership was underpaying homeless people for their work under a workforce training program. Judge Sotomayor ruled that the program's organizers by calling the homeless "trainees" and paying less than $2 an hour to perform menial work had violated the law. She found that many of the conditions for trainee work status were not satisfied, and discounted the argument that some of the workers agreed to work for free. Her opinion also mentioned the partnership's financial gain from the cheap labor, a partnership official's exorbitant salary and allegations of worker abuse.

Why She's Brilliant

Sotomayor drew on a firm set of guidelines to decide this case, showing a healthy respect for the letter of the law. What's more, she recognized the egregious exploitation of downtrodden souls who didn't have the means to fight back. It's just the sort of empathetic approach that President Obama values in a jurist.

Why She's a Lunatic

Sotomayor's overbroad interpretation of labor law speaks volumes about her distaste for free-labor markets. When adults consent to work for free, that's not exploitation it's volunteerism! By harping on the company's profits, alleged abuses and executive paychecks, she's not interpreting the law she's demonizing a legitimate business, painting it as a heartless, slave-driving cartel. In reality, this was a partnership aiming to help the homeless, an activity made more difficult due to Sotomayor's meddling.

The DUI Do-Over: Krimstock v. Kelly (2002)

Eugene Richards

This class-action suit against New York City challenged a vehicle-seizure policy allowing law enforcement to hold vehicles seized during misdemeanors until an eventual forfeiture proceeding a waiting period that could take years. Judge Sotomayor ruled that the city needed to allow prompt hearings for vehicle owners to challenge the impoundment. She cited various state and local statutes dealing with post-seizure hearing and detention procedures and innocent owner defenses. She also drew on the Fourth and Fourteenth amendments to come to the conclusion that the city's seizure policies violated due-process rights. "A car or truck is often central to a person's livelihood or daily activities," Sotomayor wrote.

Why She's Brilliant

As a judicial realist, Sotomayor recognizes the obvious: you don't compound a man's wheels for two years because of a DUI. That actually had been happening under New York's inane seizure policy, and clearly someone needed to call bullshit. Sotomayor's broad interpretation of civil liberties laws to support her decision show her cognizance of the ways in which police can adversely and unnecessarily burden the lives of average Joes, and they show her tendency to err on the side of constitutional protection over strict law enforcement procedure.

Why She's a Lunatic

Sotomayor's decision seems reasonable enough, but her reasoning reveals a paranoid distrust of law enforcement. In her opinion, she questions police officers' ability to act as fair brokers to the accused, citing the "risk of erroneous seizure" and even mentioning the police department's financial interest in seizing property. It's a bizarre implication for a federal judge to make doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the justice system, does it?

The Disgruntled Draft Pick: Maurice Clarett v. NFL (2004)

Jacus/iStock

Former Ohio State running back Maurice Clarett sued the NFL over claims that an eligibility rule violated antitrust law. Judge Sotomayor decided that the rule requiring draftees to be at least three years removed from high school is exempt from antitrust law because of special exceptions made for collective bargaining. She rejected Clarett's argument that the eligibility rule put an undue restriction on the labor market, citing unions' longstanding right to help shape hiring criteria.

Why She's Brilliant

Sotomayor has a clear record in favor of strong collective bargaining arrangements. Even in the face of seemingly competing rules antitrust provisions designed to promote free competition she decided to protect unions' sway over employment standards. More importantly, she protected the NFL from having to employ underage punks in general, and Clarett in particular.

Why She's a Lunatic

Yet another pro-labor decision. When it comes to cases in which labor law is in dispute, whatever the merits, smart money says Sotomayor sides with the unions. In fact, legal scholars have slammed this case, calling it an overbroad application of the legal loophole that allows antitrust exemptions. A St. John's Law Review article dedicated to the case accused Sotomayor of "tipping the scales of the delicate balance between federal labor law and antitrust law too far in favor of labor law."

Matthew Emmons/US PRESSWIRE via Newscom

Several environmental groups recently challenged an EPA rule regulating water-intake structures at power plants, arguing that the rule did not adequately protect the surrounding aquatic life. Judge Sotomayor rejected the EPA rule on the basis that cost-benefit analysis was an inappropriate rationale for rulemaking. She took issue with the EPA's establishment of a range of methods with which power plants could comply with the Clean Water Act, rather than a single standard, writing that the decision to do so wasn't well explained and "frustrated effective judicial review." Sotomayor strongly rejected proposed restoration measures such as restocking fish as a way to minimize environmental impact, even citing the dictionary definition of the word "minimize" to make her argument.

Why She's Brilliant

Sotomayor drew heavily on past court decisions to rule in favor of sensible environmental regulation and to chide the EPA for its lax, poorly reasoned policymaking. You needn't be a wild-eyed treehugger to recognize that "minimizing" aquatic suffering doesn't mean slaughtering as many salmon as you'd like, so long as you dump a few fresh ones back in the river. Is it any wonder that a smart judge would chide George W. Bush's EPA for its cloudy logic?

Why She's a Lunatic

Sotomayor's decision was overturned by the Supreme Court, which found cost-benefit analysis a-okay. Clearly she was determined to side with the activists, in spite of the law, and she grabbed at straws to do so. Who cares that the EPA didn't explain why it used cost-benefit analysis? The Clean Water Act left the policy process open-ended for a reason to allow the EPA to regulate without micromanagement from Congress. Or activist judges.

RELATED LINKS:

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io