Today the Hispanic Leadership Fund issued the following statement by its President, Mario H. Lopez, regarding the Supreme Court’s decision in Ricci v. DeStefano:

The Ricci case is a prime example of how working families are negatively impacted when judges reply on their personal preferences instead of strictly following the law. Hispanics, like all Americans, understand that replacing equality of opportunity with equality of results is not a recipe for justice. Today, the hard working Hispanic and white firefighters who passed their exam finally received true empathy—that which comes from being on the right side of the law.

"Frank Ricci finally got his day in court, despite the judging of Sonia Sotomayor, which all nine Justices of U.S. Supreme Court have now confirmed was in error.

"Usually, poor performance in any profession is not rewarded with the highest job offer in the entire profession.

"What Judge Sotomayor did in Ricci was the equivalent of a pilot error resulting in a bad plane crash. And now the pilot is being offered to fly Air Force One.

"The firefighters in New Haven who protect the public safety and worked hard for their promotions did not deserve to become victims of racial quotas, and the Supreme Court has now confirmed that they did not deserve to have their claims buried and thrown out by Judge Sotomayor."

PHILADELPHIA, PA: Chief Justice John Roberts announced that the United States Supreme Court will render a decision on the controversial race case decided by Judge Sotomayor in Ricci v. DeStefano on Monday, June 29th.

The case, decided by Judge Sotomayor, raises significant questions regarding race and merit-based promotion in America's workplaces.

"No case can give us a better view of Judge Sotomayor's judicial philosophy than her decision in Ricci vs. DiStefano," said Pennsylvania Judicial Coalition spokesperson Athan Koutsiouroumbas, "This case strikes at the heart of advancement in our society."

Dear Senators:

Unfortunately, even with the additional submissions of June 15, 2009, Judge Sotomayor’s answers and document production to the Senate Judiciary Committee's questionnaire – and, accordingly, to the American people – are still incomplete.

Question 12(b) calls for Judge Sotomayor to disclose (and indeed, to provide four copies of) “any reports, memoranda, or policy statements you prepared or contributed to the preparation of on behalf of any bar association, committee, conference, or organization of which you were or are a member or in which you have participated . . . .” and to include any such documents produced by any working group of such organizations “even where you did not contribute to it.”

PHILADELPHIA, PA: President Obama’s “empathy” standard is widely rejected by most Americans according to recent polling. With Judge Sotomayor’s predisposition to “empathy” and judicial activism, President Obama and his nominee for the Supreme Court run against the mainstream.

The polling results are produced by IBD/TIPP, recognized for producing the most accurate Presidential Election polling in 2008.

According to IDB/TIPP, three in five (59%) believe a high court justice should consider only the Constitution, applicable laws and precedents rather than all of these plus his or her own life experiences and views. Only one in three (32%) say justices must consider their life experiences and personal views.

Judge Sotomayor's nomination to the United States Supreme Court has generated a healthy debate over the role of judges. Some fuel was recently added to the fire when it was discovered that the White House sent Republican U.S. Senators a memo making the case that Sotomayor is a "[a] nonideological and restrained judge." According to the White House, Sotomayor rejects liberal judicial activism and the injection of personal views and experiences from the bench because she "wrote expressly about the importance of judicial restraint" during the confirmation process for her Second Circuit nomination.

PHILADELPHIA, PA: Judge Sotomayor's opposition to the death penalty stands in stark contrast to Senator Specter's long-time support of the death penalty as an essential tool for law enforcement officials to protect families in Pennsylvania and nationwide.

"As a former District Attorney, Senator Specter is a long-time proponent of the death penalty," said Pennsylvania Judicial Network spokesperson Athan Koutsiouroumbas, "Judge Sotomayor opposes the death penalty."

"Judge Sotomayor has labeled the death penalty 'racist' and 'counterproductive'," said Koutsiouroumbas, "Senator Specter must compel Judge Sotomayor to further explain her opinion which is out of step with most Americans."

“It’s something that’s certainly unprecedented in the annals of White House activity on Supreme Court nominations,” Wendy Long of the Judicial Confirmation Network said in a conference call with reporters. She called the event a “sideshow” aimed at “misleading” the public about Sotomayor’s judicial record.

Last week, soon after the White House delivered Judge Sotomayor's Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire in what it billed as record time, it became clear that Judge Sotomayor had failed to disclose an important memo she wrote for the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF) arguing against the death penalty in New York.

"It now appears that she failed to disclose more than just that memo: the questionnaire contains many glaring omissions that would have given the Senate and the American public a better idea of who she is and how she approaches the law," said JCN counsel Wendy E. Long. "These omissions lead to the inescapable conclusion that the White House wants to rush through her nomination without giving Senators and the American people full transparency about Sotomayor's record."