There's been a lot said about the "New Haven" case and the what and why of the decision Judge Sotomayor was a part of. For those who want to know more about it, other than the sound-bite version, so they can appreciate the litigated issues:

1. the briefs submitted to the Supreme Court can be found at http://www.abanet.org/publiced/previ...9.shtml#ricci1 and are quite extensive.

2. the transcript from the Oral Argument of the case before the Supreme Court on 22 April 2009 can be found at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_a...ts/07-1428.pdf and is typical on how oral argument before an appellate court occurs.

3. the decision of the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals (which Judge Sotomayor participated as a panel member) can be found by going to http://www.ca2,uscourts.gov/opinion and at the "search in" box select "Opinions and Summary Orders" and at the blank "find decisions that contain"box, type "06-4996-cv" and then hit the "Search" button.

While the plaintiff's viewpoint has been the one in the news, as it sounds like they were getting s****** by the City of New Haven, once you read the respondent's position, the issue is radically different. The city's position is that, in trying to comply with federal law, they found themselves in a position where they would be subject to lawsuit if they certified the promotion tests, and no matter what they did, they were in a "d***** if you do, d***** if you don't" situation. So the battleground is conflicting federal law on a publicly sensitive issue, and how that conflict needs to be resolved so that employers and employees don't have to play guessing games on what's the "legal" thing to do.

And again, the "Latina woman" comment came from a speech given 8 years ago, and the full transcript (so you can see the context and not just the sound bite) can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us...3&pagewanted=1

Contrary to what some may believe, judges cannot create decisions out of thin air. If there are existing precedent decisions in their jurisdiction (or higher) on the topic, the judges are bound by those decisions unless they can present a legal argument (with other precedents to back them) showing why the existing precedent decision(s) don't apply and the judge(s) reasoning is superior.