N.B. For what it's worth: I remain a strong supporter of Judge Sotomayor. Her perspective would be good for the Court. I would also emphasize that her experience includes experience as a prosecutor and as a commercial litigator. She has worked (in that hackneyed but apt phrase) in the trenches. This gives her an understanding of "procedure in action" that the other Justices (with all due respect) lack.
Coming soon: the law of evidence on Spindle Law
2 comments:
The opinion's out. It's not a summary disposition. Now I must read the opinion.
I suspect that the Court (five Justices) just didn't trust the district court to determine the facts fairly in a full trial. Otherwise it's hard to understand why the Court didn't reverse the summary judgment and remand for a full trial on the question of New Haven's motive for refusing to certify the results of the exam. (It seems to me Carbanes was right in suggesting there was a genuine factual about motive that should have precluded summary judgment. [Caveat: I speak here as a complete non-expert on employment discrimination law; my point here depends entirely on whether substantive law -- employment discrimination law -- made New Haven's actual "motive" pertinent under the circumstances and, possibly, on who had the burden of proof on motive.] {Furthermore, I haven't yet read the opinion of SCOTUS. So I can be wrong here in all sorts of ways.}])
Post a Comment