"I have read many professions of outrage about this decision, but most of them focus on whether it is a good thing or a bad thing that Frank Ricci didn't get his promotion, rather than what the law requires. This puzzled me. Many of the same people who are outraged by the decision also criticize Judge Sotomayor on the grounds that she will substitute her personal preferences for the requirements of the law as written. One might therefore expect them to consider what the law required in this case, rather than simply asking whether the outcome she affirmed was the one they preferred. Oddly enough, however, they didn't."
According to Glenn Greenwald, a Constitutional lawyer who writes at Salon,
"This happens all the time where people -- mostly self-described "conservatives" -- claim to oppose an outcome-based judiciary, yet decide if they approve of judicial opinions based on their preference for the outcome rather than legal arguments. The most obvious example was Terry Schiavo, where a conservative Florida state court judge was faithfully applying clear Florida law, but since conservatives disliked the outcome on policy grounds, they viciously criticized the judge for failing to deviate from the law in order to give them the outcome they wanted. It also happens when state courts -- such as in Iowa, California and New Jersey -- reach judicial decisions about same-sex marriage based on those state's Constitutions and the precedent applying it, and immediately, people who don't have the slightest familiarity with that state's law criticize the decision: all because they don't like the policy outcome."
As I said, don't confuse me with the facts. Just give me what I want. The new Republican motto.
Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.