PFB Blog

…is Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court. I’ll have to read some old cases and see what she’s like!

Let the games begin.

Update at 9:33 a.m.: CNN has put up their “who is she” post. Not much there, other than her personal story and fluff like “she’s a moderate-liberal” and “she had the support of X Republicans in 1998.”

I’ve pulled a number of her cases and will see if I can get some of her actual legal work published some time today.

Update at 2:12 p.m.: Still reading cases as time permits. Nothing extraordinary so far. Mitt Romney has weighted in, calling her nomination “troubling.” No quotes cited.

Update at 6:40 p.m.: Hankins v. Lyght, 441 F.3d 96 (C.A.2 (N.Y.) 2006).

Facts:

“John Paul Hankins appeals from the dismissal by Judge Hurley of his age discrimination action. Hankins was a clergy member ordained by appellee New York Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church (“NYAC”). He was forced into retirement when he attained the age of 70. Appellee Ernest S. Lyght is the Bishop of the NYAC and has the power to appoint clergy to NYAC churches.

Hankins claims that the NYAC’s mandatory retirement policy violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq…

Hankins was ordained by the NYAC and served as a clergy member from 1962 to July 1, 2003. He turned 70 on November 5, 2002, and was forced into retirement on July 1, 2003, as prescribed by paragraph 356 of the Methodist Book of Discipline.”

Simple enough. The man turned 70 and was forced to retire from being a clergyman. He sued the church alleging age discrimination.

For a number of reasons not relevant to my post, the 3-person Court agreed. Sonia Sotomayor, however, wrote a dissenting opinion. She did not believe Mr. Hankins had a valid age discrimination suit. Again, she listed a number of reasons, many of which are technical in nature, but one, in particular, was interesting.

[T]he Age Discrimination in Employment Act…does not govern disputes between a religious entity and its spiritual leaders.

Again, leaving out most of the technical jargon that would only be interesting to Constitutional scholars, Sotomayor would affirm the lower Court’s ruling because, inter alia, religious groups and their members should not be subjected to this particular federal law. Sotomayor also held that the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act does not grant the Age Discrimination in Employment Act jurisdiction because the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act should apply only to discrimination by the government.

Without reading into the opinion too deeply (does she support broad protections for religious groups from government interference?), the sentiment appears to be one I would whole-heartedly support.

Update at 8:40: Not a lot out there in the case law itself, which is, I’m sure, not a coincidence. Obama had to know the level of scrutiny his first nominee would receive. I’ll keep digging. But there is this video from a conference (H/T STACLU):

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Related posts:

1. Sotomayor and the Bill of Rights: 1st and 2nd Amendments So Far Been perusing the case law… I didn’t come up with...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.