PDA

View Full Version : Obama Sotomayor backers want to kneecap firefighters


wild1
07-11-2009, 07:33 AM
Nothing a good ole Joe The Plumber-style character assassination can't fix, right?


Sotomayor backers urge reporters to probe New Haven firefighter

By Michael Doyle and David Lightman | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — Supporters of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor are quietly targeting the Connecticut firefighter who's at the center of Sotomayor's most controversial ruling.

On the eve of Sotomayor's Senate confirmation hearing, her advocates have been urging journalists to scrutinize what one called the "troubled and litigious work history" of firefighter Frank Ricci.

This is opposition research: a constant shadow on Capitol Hill.

"The whole business of getting Supreme Court nominees through the process has become bloodsport," said Gary Rose, a government and politics professor at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, Conn.

On Friday, citing in an e-mail "Frank Ricci's troubled and litigious work history," the liberal advocacy group People for the American Way drew reporters' attention to Ricci's past. Other advocates for Sotomayor have discreetly urged journalists to pursue similar story lines.

Specifically, the advocates have zeroed in on an earlier 1995 lawsuit Ricci filed claiming the city of New Haven discriminated against him because he's dyslexic. The advocates cite other Hartford Courant stories from the same era recounting how Ricci was fired by a fire department in Middletown, Conn., allegedly, Ricci said at the time, because of safety concerns he raised.

The Middletown-area fire department was subsequently fined for safety violations, but the Connecticut Department of Labor dismissed Ricci's retaliation complaint.

No People for the American Way officials could be reached Friday to speak on the record about the press campaign.

"To go after so sympathetic a plaintiff as Frank Ricci . . . is a new low in the politics of personal destruction," said Roger Pilon, the director of the libertarian Cato Institute's Center for Constitutional Studies. "If they were smart, they'd keep a low profile."

Ricci, though, has his own advocates, including conservative commentators such as CNN's Lou Dobbs and Fox's Sean Hannity.

Nor is he the only Supreme Court confirmation witness to receive sharp elbows. In 1991, for instance, then-Senate Minority Leader Alan Simpson of Wyoming warned that witness Anita Hill would be "injured and destroyed and belittled and hounded and harassed" if she testified against nominee Clarence Thomas. Hill was preparing to testify that she'd been sexually harassed by Thomas.

Hill's subsequent testimony threw into question Thomas's confirmation, during a hearing he likened to a "high-tech lynching." A closely divided Senate ultimately confirmed him.

The 35-year-old Ricci was the lead plaintiff in the case Ricci v. DeStefano, challenging New Haven's refusal to promote white firefighters after African-American and all but one Hispanic firefighters failed to score high enough on a promotion exam.

Sotomayor and a majority of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the city's claim that it was justifiably concerned about a potential civil rights suit being filed by the African-American firefighters.

"Sotomayor and her panel colleagues were bound by long-standing precedent and federal law," People for the American Way executive vice president Marge Baker said in a June statement. "They applied the law without regard to their personal views."

Last month, however, the Supreme Court overturned the 2nd Circuit by 5-4.

"Once . . . employers have made clear their selection criteria, they may not then invalidate the test results, thus upsetting an employee's legitimate expectation not to be judged on the basis of race," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority.

With his awards for bravery, some 17 years of fire department service and history of overcoming dyslexia, Ricci has become a compelling human character in the Sotomayor confirmation drama. Senate Republicans have summoned him, along with Lt. Ben Vargas of the New Haven Fire Department, as two of their 14 witnesses next week.

Though even Republicans concede Sotomayor appears poised to win confirmation, the hearing — and Ricci's part in them — could be exploited politically. The case is symbolic of race-based preferences, which conservatives have long rejected.

"Affirmative action remains a potentially useful issue for the GOP," Rose noted, and "this case has the potential of perhaps mobilizing the Republican party again."

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina added that many Americans can identify with Ricci, making him an especially attractive witness for the GOP and potentially dangerous for Democrats.

"He took on a second job and worked hard, but was denied due to the same legal concepts" that were designed to protect people's rights, Graham said.

bigfoot
07-11-2009, 09:01 AM
How dare they have the audacity (of hope?) to challenge a ruling by this unbelievably flawless SC nominee..Sotomayor. Why they have tarnished the record of Obama's SC pick and they must pay! Ricci and his buddies should be smeared into oblivion!
.........Right? You know.....according to the left's politics playbook....in which Saul Alinski has some good imput.

Mr. Kotter
07-11-2009, 09:04 AM
What a total and utter crock of shit--assuming it's true.

Warrior5
07-11-2009, 09:04 AM
Advocacy groups are allowed to do this. It sucks, but it is what it is.

headsnap
07-11-2009, 09:18 AM
Advocacy groups are allowed to do this. It sucks, but it is what it is.

thank you, that makes me feel much better... :rolleyes:

Mr. Kotter
07-11-2009, 09:27 AM
Advocacy groups are allowed to do this. It sucks, but it is what it is.

Yup. And yet we wonder why and lament that Americans have become cynical and disillussioned.

It'll take eight full years of a full court effort by Obama and his administration to reverse that. Good luck. It appears to not be off to a good start.

Ultra Peanut
07-11-2009, 09:29 AM
5-4, IT'S PRACTICALLY UNANIMOUS

Mr. Kotter
07-11-2009, 09:46 AM
5-4, IT'S PRACTICALLY UNANIMOUS

A win is a win, Ma'am.

jAZ
07-11-2009, 09:52 AM
the advocates have zeroed in on an earlier 1995 lawsuit Ricci filed claiming the city of New Haven discriminated against him because he's dyslexic. The advocates cite other Hartford Courant stories from the same era recounting how Ricci was fired by a fire department in Middletown, Conn., allegedly, Ricci said at the time, because of safety concerns he raised.

The Middletown-area fire department was subsequently fined for safety violations, but the Connecticut Department of Labor dismissed Ricci's retaliation complaint.

No People for the American Way officials could be reached Friday to speak on the record about the press campaign.

"To go after so sympathetic a plaintiff as Frank Ricci . . . is a new low in the politics of personal destruction," said Roger Pilon, the director of the libertarian Cato Institute's Center for Constitutional Studies. "If they were smart, they'd keep a low profile."

What a strange story.

It's interesting on a few levels.

1) WTF is the firefighter doing testifying in this case? It's a matter of legal opinion and law, not something I expect he's very versed in.

2) If you are going to allow yourself to be made into the "symathetic" face of the political opposition, I don't see how you can object to have your sypathetic nature called into question, other than as a purely polticial countermeasure.

3) What a strange standard for objection: "To go after so sympathetic a plaintiff as Frank Ricci. . . is a new low in the politics of personal destruction". While I doubt any Senator will use such an approach at all, as I doubt it's very politically impactful.

The entire point of putting him on the stand is to put a symathetic face on the purely ideological objections to her. Now it turns out that he's a little less sympathetic - a self serving, letigious hypocrite.

There's no moral difference between using that guy as a "sympathetic" pawn to support your own unsympathetic character attack on Sodomayor and attacking that grounds of that pawn's "sympathetic" value by pointing out that he's filed lawsuits on both sides of the "discrimination" issue, both times to benefit his own selfish interests.

It's all about politics on both sides. Only in this case, the Republicans who surrender any moral high ground by exploiting a private citizen unecessarily. Once you do that, and agree to it, you surrender the moral high ground in your complaints about the political response to your actions.

wild1
07-11-2009, 10:00 AM
there's nothing here that is strange or hard to understand. character assassination is where you go when you want to divert attention from the argument itself and try to discredit someone and avoid having the discussion, because you don't think you will win on even terms.

HonestChieffan
07-11-2009, 10:00 AM
Face it, there is way to much money in the race lawsuit business and way too many white appologists who get thier nut and feel good about themselves by supporting this sort of garbage.

Gone are the days when people had enough to do that they were to busy to run around stirring up such crap.

Mr. Kotter
07-11-2009, 10:02 AM
... Now it turns out that he's a little less sympathetic - a self serving, letigious hypocrite...

:eek:

Damn, liberals eating their own. How odd this is turning out to be....

jAZ
07-11-2009, 10:05 AM
there's nothing here that is strange or hard to understand. character assassination is where you go when you want to divert attention from the argument itself and try to discredit someone with ad hominem attacks that have nothing to do with the discussion.

Indeed.

That's why the GOP is putting this guy on the stand to begin with. Their "she's a racist ideological radical way outside the mainstream" character assassinations were not recieved well and they needed a "sympathetic figure" to replace the image of Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, and the other race baiting Republican pols.

jAZ
07-11-2009, 10:06 AM
Face it, there is way to much money in the race lawsuit business and way too many white appologists who get thier nut and feel good about themselves by supporting this sort of garbage.

Gone are the days when people had enough to do that they were to busy to run around stirring up such crap.

Black man exploiting the white man into keeping the white man down.

ROFL

jAZ
07-11-2009, 10:07 AM
:eek:

Damn, liberals eating their own. How odd this is turning out to be....

Other than a general objection to that perception of Ricci, I'm not sure what your post means.

wild1
07-11-2009, 10:08 AM
Indeed.

That's why the GOP is putting this guy on the stand to begin with. Their "she's a racist ideological radical way outside the mainstream" character assassinations were not recieved well and they needed a "sympathetic figure" to replace the image of Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, and the other race baiting Republican pols.

No, they know how the firefighters' story and Sotomayor's attitudes on racial preferences will play to the average American. So their objective is to eithr make the story go away, or failing that, to demonize them.

jAZ
07-11-2009, 10:09 AM
A win is a win, Ma'am.

Not when you are trying to establish that the nominee is too ideologically radical to trust on the high court.

Mr. Kotter
07-11-2009, 10:10 AM
Other than a general objection to that perception of Ricci, I'm not sure what your post means.

Liberals are really good at identifying a self serving, letigious hypocrites--because it's like looking in the mirror.

The irony.... LMAO

jAZ
07-11-2009, 10:11 AM
No, they know how the firefighters' story and Sotomayor's attitudes on racial preferences will play to the average American. So their objective is to eithr make the story go away, or failing that, to demonize them.

Remove the "no" and replace it with "yes, and further"... and we can agree.

Otherwise you are completely ignoring the politics behind how and why the guy ended up on the witness list to begin with. He's being exploited for no substantive reason.

Brock
07-11-2009, 10:13 AM
The advocates cite other Hartford Courant stories from the same era recounting how Ricci was fired by a fire department in Middletown, Conn., allegedly, Ricci said at the time, because of safety concerns he raised.


Wow, what a horrible, litigious person.

jAZ
07-11-2009, 10:14 AM
Liberals are really good at identifying a self serving, letigious hypocrites--because it's like looking in the mirror.

The irony.... LMAO

Ahhh! I get it now. You aren't even objecting to the perception that Ricci ultimately is a litigious, self-serving hypocrite. Sorry for mischaracterizing you as such.

You are simply performing character assisination on liberals by associating them with Ricci.

Got it.

jAZ
07-11-2009, 10:16 AM
Wow, what a horrible, litigious person.

Way to ignore the sentence that formed the basis of my post...

Specifically, the advocates have zeroed in on an earlier 1995 lawsuit Ricci filed claiming the city of New Haven discriminated against him because he's dyslexic.

... in favor of a sentence that has nothing to do with anything I said.

Brock
07-11-2009, 10:19 AM
Way to ignore the sentence that formed the basis of my post...



... in favor of a sentence that has nothing to do with anything I said.

It was just a general reply to the topic, but I'm aware your massive ego, typical of the unjustifiably self-important, might make you assume that I was speaking directly to you.

Mr. Kotter
07-11-2009, 10:22 AM
Ahhh! I get it now. You aren't even objecting to the perception that Ricci ultimately is a litigious, self-serving hypocrite. Sorry for mischaracterizing you as such.

You are simply performing character assisination on liberals by associating them with Ricci.

Got it.

At least I'm an equal-opportunity character assassin....as opposed to one who refuses to give similar attention to other deserving, but ideologically aligned, folks.

:D

jAZ
07-11-2009, 10:41 AM
It was just a general reply to the topic, but I'm aware your massive ego, typical of the unjustifiably self-important, might make you assume that I was speaking directly to you.

Fair enough, though for the record, your use of "litigous" after I used it was the basis for my assumption. I didn't notice that it was used prominantly in the article too.

So throw out the "I said" and replace it with "the litigation".

The litigous reference you and I were both responding to still had to do with the reference this Ricci's litigation, which from the article are limited to discrimination claims.

The firing issue appears to be a labor board complaint, not a lawsuit.

jAZ
07-11-2009, 10:42 AM
At least I'm an equal-opportunity character assassin....as opposed to one who refuses to give similar attention to other deserving, but ideologically aligned, folks.

:D

Based on your posting history, this would be a false statement.

Brock
07-11-2009, 10:51 AM
Fair enough, though for the record, your use of "litigous" after I used it was the basis for my assumption. I didn't notice that it was used prominantly in the article too.

So throw out the "I said" and replace it with "the litigation".

The litigous reference you and I were both responding to still had to do with the reference this Ricci's litigation, which from the article are limited to discrimination claims.

The firing issue appears to be a labor board complaint, not a lawsuit.

Being fired for pointing out safety concerns isn't the same as being fired or passed over for discriminatory reasons. To even bring it up reveals the weakness in this meddling organizations claims about him, particularly when he was shown to be correct.

jAZ
07-11-2009, 02:19 PM
Being fired for pointing out safety concerns isn't the same as being fired or passed over for discriminatory reasons. To even bring it up reveals the weakness in this meddling organizations claims about him, particularly when he was shown to be correct.

Agreed.

To bring in one of the firefighters also reveals the weakness of the GOPs claims about Sodomayor.

petegz28
07-11-2009, 02:30 PM
She is a fucking racist, plaing and simple. That much cannot be argued.

Calcountry
07-11-2009, 02:41 PM
When do the Demoncrats confirm Sotomywhore.

blaise
07-11-2009, 02:53 PM
What a strange story.

It's interesting on a few levels.

1) WTF is the firefighter doing testifying in this case? It's a matter of legal opinion and law, not something I expect he's very versed in.

2) If you are going to allow yourself to be made into the "symathetic" face of the political opposition, I don't see how you can object to have your sypathetic nature called into question, other than as a purely polticial countermeasure.

3) What a strange standard for objection: "To go after so sympathetic a plaintiff as Frank Ricci. . . is a new low in the politics of personal destruction". While I doubt any Senator will use such an approach at all, as I doubt it's very politically impactful.

The entire point of putting him on the stand is to put a symathetic face on the purely ideological objections to her. Now it turns out that he's a little less sympathetic - a self serving, letigious hypocrite.

There's no moral difference between using that guy as a "sympathetic" pawn to support your own unsympathetic character attack on Sodomayor and attacking that grounds of that pawn's "sympathetic" value by pointing out that he's filed lawsuits on both sides of the "discrimination" issue, both times to benefit his own selfish interests.

It's all about politics on both sides. Only in this case, the Republicans who surrender any moral high ground by exploiting a private citizen unecessarily. Once you do that, and agree to it, you surrender the moral high ground in your complaints about the political response to your actions.

It's also interesting that if the shoe were on the other foot your take would be 180 degrees different. You're a total shill for the left, that's your sole motivation it seems, and because of that it's diffiicult to have any respect for anything you say.