MELISSA BLOCK, host:
This is ALL THINGS CONSIDERED from NPR News. I'm Melissa Block.
MICHELE NORRIS, host:
And I'm Michele Norris.
As Senators and interest groups begin to dig into Sonia Sotomayor's record, questions involving race and gender are cropping up. Opponents of the president's Supreme Court pick are focusing on one speech she gave eight years ago and one decision now on appeal to the Supreme Court. NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg deconstructs the issues in both.
NINA TOTENBERG: The decision focuses on the incendiary issues of race, testing and allegations of special treatment for minorities. At issue were promotions in the New Haven, Connecticut, fire department. The city decided its promotion test was flawed because the results would have promoted no African-Americans. The city decided that if it didn't design a better test, it would be sued by minority firefighters under the testing provisions of the Civil Rights Act and would likely lose. Instead, the city was sued by a group of white firefighters who scored well on the test and said they were denied promotions because of their race.
A federal district court judge, in a lengthy opinion, said the city was discriminating against no one because all of the test results were discarded and nobody was promoted. Judge Sotomayor was on a three-judge panel that reviewed the decision. In a six-sentence order, the panel said that the New Haven Civil Service Board had no good alternatives because the test appeared to violate a provision of federal law that treats, with grave suspicion, tests that produce such racially disproportionate results.
We are not unsympathetic to the frustration of the white firefighters who studied hard and scored high on the promotion exam, said the panel, in its brief, unsigned opinion. But the city was within its rights to take steps necessary to avoid liability. Judge Jose Cabranes, who was not on the panel, wrote a lengthy opinion that unsuccessfully sought to have the full appeals court review the matter, contending the decision could lead to quotas. His opinion was a red flag to the U.S. Supreme Court, which decided to review the case and heard arguments last month.
At the oral argument, questions posed by the justices suggested strongly that the appeals court ruling would be reversed. The high court's opinion is expected in late June, probably just weeks before a confirmation hearing, and it could well be seen as a repudiation of Sotomayor.
At a White House teleconference this week, University of North Carolina constitutional scholar William Marshall contended that the New Haven decision is an example of judicial caution, since the panel was only following the prevailing law in the circuit.
Professor WILLIAM MARSHALL (Constitutional Scholar, University of North Carolina): It strikes me that's a hallmark of judicial restraint. It's not a hallmark of judicial activism - and that particular approach is something that indicates that she is very measured and she is very cautious.
TOTENBERG: For opponents of the Sotomayor nomination, the New Haven case fits nicely with claims that she's a judge who engages in, quote, "identity politics." The conservative Judicial Confirmation Network has a new ad up on its Web site quoting from a 2001 lecture at Berkeley Law School.
Unidentified Woman: Here's Judge Sotomayor in her own published words. Our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. I would hope that a wise Latino woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.
(Soundbite of typewriter)
TOTENBERG: Because of that line in her speech and the firefighter's case, Rush Limbaugh has called Sotomayor a reverse discriminator. And former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich has Twittered that she's a racist. Harvard law professor Charles Ogletree sees her statement as an appropriate speech for a symposium aimed at getting minority students to believe they can aspire to being judges.
Professor CHARLES OGLETREE (Law, Harvard University): I would've put it differently. But I don't criticize her for trying to encourage people to think that they can make a contribution. And they shouldn't assume that because the people that teach them, that hire them, that evaluate them and supervise them are white male - are the only people with good ideas.
TOTENBERG: Sotomayor's speech is an exploration of what difference it makes, if any, to have women and minorities serving as judges. Noting that an all-white male Supreme Court struck down school segregation in 1954, she argued nonetheless that not all judges take the time to understand the experiences of others. Personal experience, she said, can affect the facts that judges choose to see. And she pointed to studies showing that women on state appellate courts tend to vote more often than their male counterparts to uphold women's claims of sex discrimination.
Quoting Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's statement that a wise old man and a wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases, Sotomayor said she was not sure she agreed. First, she said, there can never be a universal definition of wise. After all, some of the court's most famous justices — Oliver Wendell Holmes and Benjamin Cardozo - upheld overt race and sex discrimination in society.
Second, she said, and here is the killer line, I would hope that a wise Latino woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.
Today, the White House sought to defuse the issue saying that Sotomayor thinks that line was a poor choice of words. She will undoubtedly spend more time explaining it at her confirmation hearing.
Nina Totenberg, NPR News, Washington.