Civilrights.org

Today, Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the first day of her confirmation hearing. 

In his opening statement, the chair of the committee, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D. Vt., said that "she has been a judge for all Americans and will be a justice for all Americans."

Sotomayor addressed the commitee in the afternoon after committee members gave opening remarks that hinted at the types of questions they will be asking during the hearings.  In her statement, Sotomayor honored her family and friends, described her work as a prosecutor, litigator, and gave a small peek into how she operates as a judge. 

"Throughout my 17 years on the bench, I have witnessed the human consequences of my decisions. Those decisions have been made not to serve the interests of any one litigant, but always to serve the larger interest of impartial justice," said Sotomayor.

Yesterday, I joined my fellow LCCR/EF interns at the Campus Progress 2009 National Conference. Campus Progress, a project of the Center for American Progress, works to encourage young people to become engaged in the political process and express their views through media and grassroots activism.

We helped staff LCCR's table on Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Our task was to talk with young people about the nomination and encourage them to show support for Sotomayor.  Between panels on how to survive the recession and the future of independent media, we had the opportunity to meet with many young activists from all around the nation who shared our enthusiasm for Sotomayor's nomination. 

The conference was a resounding success, bringing together over 1,000 young people and several prominent speakers, including former President Bill Clinton; Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D. Calif., the speaker of the House; John Oliver of "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart"; and Joel Madden of the band Good Charlotte. 

The positive energy of the participants and the sharing of ideas were inspiring and we hope to participate in future Campus Progress events.

In its 5-4 decision in Cuomo v. Clearing House Assn., L.L.C. this week, the Supreme Court ruled that states, not just federal authorities, can enforce their own fair lending and consumer protection laws against national banks. Consumer advocates say the ruling will play a major role in how consumer protection and civil rights laws are enforced.

The case began in 2005 when the state of New York tried to investigate certain national banks it believed were charging minority borrowers higher interest rates than White borrowers.

National banks, who are already regulated by the federal government, argued that state scrutiny of their mortgage lending records would unleash a complicated patchwork of state regulations that would make it hard for them to meet the needs of their customers across all 50 states.  

But Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for an unusual group of four other justices – Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer – found that in instances where state and federal law do not explicitly conflict, states should be free to enforce their civil rights laws in court. Otherwise, said Scalia, "the bark remains, but the bite does not."

"This Supreme Court decision is a victory for taxpayers, who have suffered enormously as a result of abusive business practices in all types of lending.  This decision will help to restore confidence in the financial services industry and the national economy," said Michael Calhoun, president of the Center for Responsible Lending. 

Read the opinion.

Last week, in a 5-to-4 decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., the Supreme Court made it harder for employees to win age discrimination lawsuits.

The lawsuit was brought by Jack Gross, a longtime employee of FBL Financial Services, Inc., who was demoted at the age of 54 through what the employer called a restructuring.  Gross argued his demotion was the result of his age and filed suit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967, which prohibits employment discrimination against workers over the age of 40.

In a broad decision, the Court reversed a longstanding rule used by many federal appellate courts that provided for a two-step process in some age discrimination cases under the ADEA.  Previously, the employee had to demonstrate that age was a motivating factor in the employer's decision, which then shifted the burden to the employer to prove that the action was based on grounds other than age.  Now, the employee carries the full burden of showing that age was the determining factor in a demotion or layoff by an employer. 

Seniors' rights and civil rights groups denounced the decision.

"By putting on the worker the entire burden of demonstrating the absence or insignificance of such factors, the majority has effectively freed employers to discriminate against older workers, as long as they do not actually state that they are singling out an employee for adverse treatment solely because of age," said the National Senior Citizens Law Center in a statement.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor has earned high praise for her intellect, sense of fairness, and her commitment to the rule of law by both Democrats and Republicans for her experience as a criminal prosecutor, an attorney in private practice along with her distinguished record on the federal bench.

At a June 10 American Constitution Society (ACS) panel discussion, Wade Henderson, president and CEO of LCCR, said the nomination of Sotomayor to replace retiring Justice David Souter has both substantive and historic significance in appointing the first Hispanic to the Court. To Henderson, the Sotomayor nomination illustrates how diversity and excellence are "not only compatible but readily achievable."  ACS is a legal organization that brings together legal scholars, policymakers, public policy advocates, law students and members of the media to discuss and debate progressive public policy ideas and proposals.

Henderson also said that analyses in various newspapers, such as The Washington Post, show that Sotomayor's rulings as a federal district court judge and a judge on the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals demonstrate her ability to make fair decisions and don't "show any strong ideological bent."