The Frank Ricci case, I completely agree with Sotomayor’s ruling. It was the law, albeit a crappy law but none the less, the law. Sotomayor was presented with what was established state precedent and established law and she upheld that law. That was her job. In other words, Sotomayor didn’t legislate from the bench. The Conservatives on the Supreme Court on the other hand, DID legislate from the bench.

This is a truly crappy and unfair law but it’s a state legislature issue and should’ve been left up to the state legislature to correct. Minimally, submit a petition and force the issue on a ballot and let the voters abolish the law. What Sotomayor did was uphold the law and not legislate from the bench.

What if Sotomayor was presented with a case of Anti-prop 8 supporters vs. The State of California over the law against same sex marriage. Sotomayor upholds the state law and rules against the anti-prop 8 claims. Then the case gets elevated to SCOTUS where they rule against California’s state legislature in favor of legalizing same sex marriage. The Supreme Court just legislated from the bench against established state law. I’ve lost count as to how many times I’ve heard outrage over this “judicial activism” but that is exactly what happened with the Frank Ricci case.

I strongly disagree with what happened to Frank Ricci but Sotomayor did exactly what she was supposed to do and upheld the established law. It was up to the state legislature and/or the state voters to change the legislation, not the Supreme Court. Read Justice Souter’s opinion. Good stuff.