Racism rejected: SCOTUS reverses Sotomayor in firefighters case
President Obama applauds the decision as a victory for equality under the law. Not.
The Supreme Court has ruled that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.
SCOTUS Blog background here. More background here and here.
Tom Goldstein: “Ricci result: Kennedy finds a violation of Title VII. An outright reversal 5-4…the plaintiff firefighters won. New Haven violated the law by throwing out the test.”
Sotomayor = Not so wise now.
***
The Ricci opinion is now available here.
At Cato, Roger Pilon and Ilya Shapiro weigh in.
And Wendy Long at the Judicial Confirmation Network responds to the decision:
Judicial Confirmation Network: NOT EVEN ONE JUSTICE APPROVED SOTOMAYER IN RICCI CASE
“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.”
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Sotomayor Racist Decision Overturned by Supreme Court re: White Firefighters « VotingFemale Speaks!
- Racist, bigoted Sotomayor repudiated by SCOTUS | The TIW Blog
- Time Magazine Darkens Sotomayor Cover?
- The Confirmation Hearings Just Got More Interesting « Around The Sphere
- Bloodthirsty Liberal » So-So by Name, So-so by Legal Acumen [UPDATED]
- PAXALLES
- Discrimination Judicially Enforced If Sotomayor Had Her Way « Blog Entry « Dr. Melissa Clouthier
- Right Wing News
- Reverse Racism « GOP Counter Culture
- Sotomayor Overturned « The Climate Heretic
- Sonia Sotomayor Overruled (again) by SCOTUS | Axis of Right
- Sotomayor reversed again - Tundra Solutions Forum
- The Supreme Court Overturns Sotomayor In Firefighter Case « Goodtimepolitics
- Racism rejected: SCOTUS reverses Sotomayor in firefighters case
- Supreme Court To Sotomayor: You Blew It… Again « Grand Rants
- Supreme Court Rules in Favor of White and Hispanic Firefighters in Ricci v. DeStefano | OpenMarket.org
- Jeremiah Films
- WHEW! (Open Thread) « Sister Toldjah
- Got Tea? Where are the jobs? « Jim Blazsik
- La Raza Sotomayor’s racist fire fighter promotions decision OVERULED! | Fire Andrea Mitchell!
- Supreme Court Overrules Sotomayor, Rules for White Firefighters over Promotions « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- High Court Rules for White Firefighters in Discrimination Suit « Dark Brightness
- Dirty Democrats » Discrimination Judicially Enforced If Sotomayor Had Her Way
- More Monday Reading
- Sotomayor reversed again. It’s Haiku time « Nuke Gingrich
- Sotomayor’s ruling overturned « Dianej
- Supreme Court overturns Sotomayor on Ricci v DeStefano - rightofcourse.com
- 9 Out Of 9 Supreme Court Justices Disagree With Sotomayor « Tai-Chi Policy
- The Lioness
- Sotomayor chosen as SC nominee (academic discussion) - Page 18 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum
- Steynian 369 « Free Canuckistan!
- Supreme Court Overturns Sotomayor Judgment — Where’s a Wise Latina Woman on the Court When You Need One? « Quick Daily Hits — Politics and Such
- What the Media won't tell you about Judge Sotomayor | The Patriot's Mind
- Friday’s Funnies: Sonia Sotomayor’s Supreme Court Judge Nomination Political Cartoons « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Stop The ACLU
- Democrat Attack Dogs Waiting to Leap on Frank Ricci: SCOTUS Hearings for Sonia Sotomayor Begin Today « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Excellence In America
- Sonia Sotomayor’s SCOTUS Hearing, Day 2: Judicial Activism, Ricci v DeStefano, & “Wise Latina” Remarks « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Franken & Sotomayor Share ‘Perry Mason’ Memories… Franken Loves the Sound of His Own Voice « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- As Expected: Senate Panel Endorses SCOTUS Nominee Sonia Sotomayor in 13-6 Vote « Frugal Café Blog Zone
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Race relations, Sonia Sotomayor
Power Line
» More From the East Anglia Archives
Founding Bloggers
» Did The New York Times Just Tell Glenn Reynolds To “STFU”?Doug Ross @ Journal
» BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! Boston Globe Climate Beclownment SpectacularDoug Ross @ Journal
» 'Hope is fading fast' --- the T-ShirtRadio Equalizer
» Media Matters Admits Rush Didn't Make Key Racist RemarksDoug Ross @ Journal
» The CRU Climate Scam In 90 SecondsHot Air
» 3rd quarter GDP 2.8%, not 3.5%Mudville Gazette
» Threatswatch: US Embassy Denies Secret Eikenberry Talks With Taliban
lgm: Being reversed is being reversed. She has been shown to be lacking in reasoning, logic, understanding of the Constitution, the law, however you want to state it, she has BEEN REVERSED!!!
Maybe, just maybe, this will begin the end of racism that began in 1964, actively established by liberals.
lgm should give up his job to a more deserving minority then he could spend the majority of his time working under the bridge.
Once again, elections matter. This was almost on ideological lines and sadly, there were still 4 justices who think the white man must be the whipping boy for all of America’s “sins.”
Hey LGM, since you are such an advocate of affirmative action why don’t you resign your position and let a minority of any kind take your place. Then you can join the unemployment ranks and start over just like everyone else who doesn’t qualify for affirmative action benefits. I know you are too much of a coward to even respond.
On June 29th, 2009 at 10:35 am, xler8bmw said:
I agree 100%.
In my opinion, only the best and brightest deserve whatever job or position they are competing for.
If not enough minorities aren’t getting the positions, then it should be a wake up call to study harder, train harder, etc.
Jobs and positions should not be given to those who don’t qualify. Plain and simple.
but lgm, what do you think of the ruling?
Translation: Obama’s ideological comrade, sucks as an impartial judge of equal rights and treatment under the law.
The Democrat Party response?
“LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, L-A-A-A-A-A!” (shouted with index fingers firmly planted in their ears.) “She’s more than qualified, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, L-A-A-A-A!!!!!!!”
…Oh, yeah, and “RASCIST!!!!”
Absolutely!
And a wake-up to the apathetic minorities who don’t push for school vouchers or the overhaul of public ed (to say the least).
The ONLY radicals on that court are the liberals. You’re comments are laughable LGM. Not to mention, obviously wrong.
But regarding something actually relevant, Ginsberg’s comments are in fact scary as EdDantes points out. To see how her mind equivocates and realizing that she is a SCOTUS judge, is in fact frightening. It makes it clear that she is not on that court to rule based on the law, but rather rule based on her liberal agenda.
Here’s hoping she outlasts Obama’s term so she can be replaced by a conservative.
On June 29th, 2009 at 10:40 am, Ignatius Reilly said:
If we lose one of our five, we are in big trouble.
Then consider how different things could have been…
three of their four will likely be leaving soon…
Souter has already announced his retirement, and Ginsberg and Stevens aren’t expected to be there too much longer. If we had a conservative President and at least 50 votes in the Senate, we could have taken the court to an 8-1 majority.
We didn’t lose the election on November 4, 2008. We lost the election eight months earlier on March 4, 2008… when a trojan horse clinched our party’s nomination, and the last conservative dropped out of the race.
What, is the Michael Jackson induced news blackout over? Or was this one of the headlines at the bottom of the screen?
Was it a test of leadership abilities, or fire fighting knowledge, or both? Did the test include questions about applicable laws relating to fire fighting, administration, budgeting? It seems to me that anything that could possibly be on the test had to be “race neutral.” That being the case, then those who performed best on the test were the ones most qualified to be in positions of leadership, regardless of race.
This is so far down the list I’m sure no one will read it…but it’s really important to note the basis of the minority dissent on this case. Bader-Ginsberg notes that no else had benefited from the discrimination and that the firefighters had no right to promotion; compare this with other discrimination law, such as sexual harassment, where the ACT of discrimination is itself the basis of action. In the case of a woman being harassed in a hostile environment case…harm does not have to be shown, it is considered present as a result of the harassing actions themselves. If the Bader-Ginsberg standard were applied to sexual harassment cases, close to half of them would be summarily dismissed.
Now…I don’t believe for a second that this is really an evolving judicial philosophy among the left, but I do believe that it underscores the desperation and the disregard for established law that the liberal wing of the court shows. In this case, the five conservative jurists actually preserve the greatest rights for plaintiffs in a discrimination lawsuit…albeit plaintiffs (in this case) of the “wrong” color. I’m hoping that Bader-Ginsberg’s flawed logic is recited ad nauseum in the appellate courts as the basis for overturning discrimination cases…nothing like chaos to sort things out.
In fact, from what I’ve read, the city of New Haven bent over backwards to ensure the test was fair. That’s one of the reasons their invalidating the test is so infuriating.
Ginsberg had no vested right to graduate from law school. Let’s throw out all of the tests she took. After all there were many blacks, purples, yellows, greens and reds who didn’t pass those tests and many who never even got the chance to take them!
C’mon Ruth! Tell us how YOU don’t deserve to be where you are? (and then just go away..)
Racism is alive and well in the USA.
If you want to see it…
Take a look at Ginsberg and Sotomayor.
Very sad that SCOTUS didn’t address the 14th Amendment issues.
Could anyone be more out of touch? In the Foxnews.com article, Sen. Leahy is qouted as saying:
Judicial restraint? He doesn’t have a clue what this case was about! His and Ginsberg’s worldview is of another time and dimension!
[Que theme to Twilight Zone!]
We should threaten to build the “most qualified” Senate by voting these bums out!! NOW!
I sure hope this decision allows enough room for a precedent to be used in future lower court cases.
Title VII v.s. reverse discrimination still seems loop the loop – the best lawyer wins. For that matter, job security for lawyers.
Well, on the bright side…the Obama SCOTUS might give us a “white only” three-point line in basketball drawn at about ten feet. It would be kinda like ladies tees in golf. And it would help reduce unfair outcomes.
If Sotamayor had been on the court she should have recused herself, dolt.
She is a Racist Affirmative Action Socialist, not fit for the bench or fit to shine shoes at SCOTUS.
Not Qualified or Acceptable. Period.
See, this I don’t get. Probably because the standards keep getting moved.
Basically I’m guessing that if we gave the same batch of firefighters a test that asked 2 + 2 = ??? and the white firefighters got it right and the black ones got it wrong, then math would now be “racist”…
What a twisted, messed up world we live in.
Ginsberg a moderate? What did you have for breakfast?
Heard in the oval office minutes ago…
What does WHITEY know anyway?
This decision underscores what I’ve said all along…
SCOTUS needs una chicana on the bench…
We need to pen the
R-A-C-I-S-T
P-I-G-S
within SCOTUS
Oh, touche.
The point that is truly EVIL, political and dishonest it that Judge Sotomayor-two of her appeals court judges and four members of the Supreme Court DO NOT CARE WHAT THE LAWS PASSED BY CONGRESS STATE.
These self important Judges for Life feel and often state that their feelings rule the land and NOT the peoples’ representatives, written law and the Constitution. The policy of this country will be set by these unelected judges and only these unelected judges-there will be no appeal to their Imperial Wisdom, Wants and Wishes.
That my fellow citizens and you fascist trolls is the major Intolerable Abuses stated in the Declaration of Independence. Mad George was somewhat LESS venal then what we are seeing now.
While I am happy for the New Haven firefighters and their victory is great for them and their families the margin speaks ill for our country and future.
This Fourth of July I shall be flying the Gadsden Flag of the Continental Army–those Bitter Men Clinging to Their God and Guns, yes those oft ill educated farmers and tradesmen who when told “Lay down your arms you damn Rebels” Fired the Shot Heard Round the World”. Ralph Waldo Emerson for our younger people cheated out of their History by our PC police.
Sotomayor no es bueno.
Ella es una idiota.
Moderate as opposed to Eight Is Too Late-Justice Ginsberg feels children should be at least 12 years old before grown men can have sex with them. And no, that is not a joke but that b!tch is that sick.
y una puta
spaceycakes,
Thank you for correcting a misconception on my part. Your question implies that lgm thinks.
I always thought his postings were merely conditioned responses similar to Pavol’s salivating dogs who just heard the bell ring.
I wouldn’t have known…….
Many assume that firemen just have to be brave, but here’s a very simple (and race biased ?) question from an entry-level New Haven firefighter promotion practice test:
When coupling hoses together, ___ 50-feet hoses and ___ 75-feet hoses will result in a length of 575 feet.
a. 5, 4
b. 4, 4
c. 5, 5
d. 4, 5
Now imagine having to solve that while burn victims are screaming for help.
(Here are some more free practice exams.)
Flyoverman, what lgm thinks is almost as relevant as what my neighbors dog thinks when he craps on my lawn. Both are pests and neither one clean up their leavings.
“LA, LA, LA RAZA LA, LA, LA RAZA L-A-A-A-A-A…….RAZZZZZZZA.”
Fixed it….
I wish they cared as much for the erosion of our Constitution and American values.
nice to get some good news out of Washington every once in awhile.
Lets’s see what’s her record on cases that have gone to the Supreme court, 6 out of 7 reversals, but , but she’s such a wise female Latina.
She’s a die hard racist just as he pal that sits in the WH.
She seems so ’70s…
Whose fault is it that minorities (mainly blacks) can’t compete? The schools? Yes. Parenting? Yes. Their Culture? Yes. These failures are a result of 1. Political correctness 2. The sexualizing of children 3. Rap 4. Liberal agenda in the public schools 5. Black culture of fathering and abandoning children 6. Victimhood attitude. There is more, but that is a sample. So, using affirmative action to cover up for the above shortcomings is ridiculous! Get to the root of the problem, don’t keep covering it up. If they can’t admit what is causing their problems, they will continue to blame “whitey”. Obama is doing his best to perpetuate the cover-up. Blacks deserve a totally equal footing with everyone else. But they have to earn it by hard work, just as we all do. This has nothing to do with skin color! That is just stupid.
That whole bunch is mentally stuck right there.
Problem is we just had an election and America voted these bums in. Where were all the people on this site who apparently don’t like the Democrat policy view? We either didn’t have enough activism and involvement, just wanted to “send a message”, or we just sat out and watched it happen.
I say that because I believe there are many people who don’t subscribe to the Obama, Pelosi, Reid, viewpoint but we lost and Sotomayer is part of the penalty. Ugh!
I don’t want to hear any excuses, especially from those who didn’t vote or just sent a message. If we don’t like the result, we better work harder next time.
If there is a next time. Have we started yet? When I see Colin Powell trying to lead Republicans, my heart sinks. That guy voted for Obama!
lgm has only one stripe, a white one running down his back.
He’s this blog’s Pepe Le Pew.
“You are ze corned beef to me, and I am ze cabbage to you.”
Well said. I like that.
Dems: “It’s the empathy, stupid!”
lgm, You are doing it again. Hitting and running with lame-ass, baseless characterizations and circular logic. To have any kind of credibility you’ll need to supply compelling rationale. Your juvenile attempt to misdirect from Sotomayor’s poor judgment (due either to incompetence or being agenda driven) is transparent as it gets. You are inviting – and even begging – insult.
I wonder how many of the 4 dissenters did so to protect Sotomayer’s nomination? I wouldn’t put it past them to decide matters on such a stupid basis. Win by any means neccesary.
LGM, is it possible that you’re even more ill-informed than we all thought you were?!?!
Sotomayor would replace Souter, who voted in the minority on this case (that means: she agrees with him).
Thus, her presence on the SCOTUS in this instance would have had no impact whatsoever!
Can’t believe this has to be explained to you. Didn’t you at one point say you taught math?
So, Roberts & Alito are “radical conservatives”, but Stevens and Ginsburg are “moderates”?!?!?!?
Thank you for making future conservative electoral victories so easy.
No, STOOOOOOOOOOOPID….,
had she been on the court, she would have had to recuse herself.
BTW, I am a radical conservative. The Supremes you count in that category are mainstream.
Ginsberg is just nuts….
The split appears to have been along procedural…not substantive…lines. I’ll let you know when I can read the dissent.
So, if I’m correct, the Supremes ruled 9-0 AGAINST Sotomayor’s “hide” ruling.
So, let’s see, according to my Spanish-English Translator Sonia Sotomayor is actually Hispanic for “Harriet Meyers.”
I’m having some fun over at sfgate.com. The comments are hilarious!
I don’t think most of them have even read the decision. Someone said, “Sotamayor was not overturned; she was one of three judges who all said the same thing”.
Uh…OK, so isn’t that three judges getting overturned, rather than Sotamayor not being overturned?
The republicans need to find a way to block a vote on Sotomayor. With Souter out.. it would give the court a right lean come the October session. I’d think there would be some Dem that would like a Pelosi style backroom deal, albeit in the Senate.
Fight fire with fire.
Staff in congress must be working overtime to get a bill together to negate that ruling. White people must be discriminated against in order to appease the “pc correct” so-called minorities. I suspect in the future, maybe whites will be at the back of the bus. If congress and Obama have their way, it will happen.
right_on said:
“The Democrat Party response?
“LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, L-A-A-A-A-A!” (shouted with index fingers firmly planted in their ears.) “She’s more than qualified, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, L-A-A-A-A!!!!!!!”
Soe what true, LOL! Your comment compelled me to go to DU to see their reaction to the decision. It is virtually non-existant. Page 1, one thread with most comments doing a careful PC dance to appear not entirely supportive of it. Page 2 & 3…..zip, nada. Finally Page 4. Two threads, each with only 3 comments each. Funny, on all 4 pages there were threads discussing a Georgia death penalty case involving SCOTUS. On the last two threads the funnies of the three each comments was one stating that racial progress had been set back 50 years. the other funny comment was how the GOP would use this to whip us all into a racist frenzy. LOL!
SCOTUS didn’t interpret the law, they APPLIED the law.
Lets hope that continues.
Not what she did.
Bork, we love you.
New math!
I can’t believe I’m about to do this, but in the interest of fairness,
LGM actually doesn’t think much of “New Math.” When his webpage was linked to his moniker, I read what he had to say on the subject, and he is right. New Math is for the birds, and he says so.
No, I’m not defending the position he has taken on this thread, or most others for that matter, but at least I know for sure he gets a few things right.
Of course I’m still waiting for an answer on what he thinks about the merits of this reversal and the case in general.
***
President Franklin Roosevelt tried to “pack” the Supreme Court so they would “rubber stamp” some of his unconstitutional laws. It didn’t work.
***
President Obama (PBUH) will get his wish when the democratic / liberal / socialist / marxist / communist U.S. Senate rubber stamps the racist Sonia Sotomayor for the new SCOTUS “justice”. Yes–racists come from all racial and ethnic groups.
***
The SCOTUS will still be a 5-4 conservative (read fair) court. But things could change quickly–auto accident, illness, terrorist (not “humankind caused”) attack, or assassination of one conservative justice. Some left wing nut case could decide to help out the Messiah with his agenda for the new U.S.S.A. Our liberty hangs by one vote!
***
I pray that the Secret Service, Capitol Police, and U.S. Marshals are guarding all 9 SCOTUS justices 24/7/365.
***
John Bibb
***
I can’t wait till she gets confirmed – she’ll be sticking it to whitey everyday!
You stick to the whitey toilet bowl. I hate when that happens.
Ilovemycountry said: I hate white people.
Where’s chap?
Ilovemycuber is a bigot.
Color me surprised.
Not.
Okay, that clown that claims to love his country must be doing a ‘Bruno’ over the top act. He can’t be serious — Can he?
That even Justice Ginsberg and the dissenters would have remanded — undoing what Judge Sotomayor did — confirms that Sotomayor is a far-left liberal judicial activist who ignores the law and rules on her own personal agenda, even beyond the current liberals on the Court.
There is nothing moderate, mainstream, or nonideological about that. This demonstrates that the White House spin on this nominee is a pure fabrication.
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.
Bench Notes
Well it seems that 4 SCOTUS members still believe in racism.
Is anyone else wondering what would have happened if the black firefighters claimed the test was unfair and sued?
Duelling lawsuits. Oy. I’m grateful they didn’t.
I’ve suspected that it is a concern sockpuppet in the past. This points more evidence in that direction.
It never makes a real point so it’s not surprising that it cannot convince us it’s really a liberal, especially when it annoys the liberal commenters as well.
Guys…
this decision was really unanimous in favor of Ricci and his compatriots.
The split was over procedure. The majority reversed and RENDERED…meaning they decided the root case without putting the lower courts back into the loop.
The minority in dissent just said that they would have remanded the case back down to the lower courts, with instructions that they rule in a manner consistent with their holding that there was NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE NEW HAVEN FINDING.
Like I say, on the substance…9-0
Of course they were discriminated against because of their race, the Federal Government has taken discrimination against white males to a science. I urge all of you to read the report at http://www.adversity.net/fed_stats/OPM2006/default.htm.
It will open your eyes to institutional discrimination by the Federal Government.
“The feds have over hired blacks by such an overwhelming margin in all 22 independent federal agencies that it is difficult to see the over-quota hiring of the other minorities.”
and this:
“Blacks were over hired at the Court Services and Offender Services agency by 841%. And at the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation by 405%.”
Maybe someone should sue the feds for discrimination too as they seem to do it with impunity.
9-0
Thanks for clearing that up. I was confused there. That makes sense but it didn’t stop Charles Krautenhiemer on Fox from saying that the ruling oould not set back Sotomayer because it was 5-4 meaning her ruling did have some Supreme Court agreement. Uh. he would be wrong.
Also saw that New Haven had to pay them all the firemen the back pay as if they had been promoted. Thas a pretty penny for no work along with the attorneys fees. The citizens of New Haven must be proud.
I hope they are mad as hell, and send the mokes in office who did this packing.
I also hope they all sleep more soundly in their homes, knowing that the high-scores are riding the command seat when the engines roll out.
Sometimes, our system produces the right result.
It’s also interesting to note all the liberals complaining about this ruling(i.e. Linda Chavez, D-CA) and how it is a loss for minorities, not mention the fact that one of the fireman whose test results weren’t certified, costing him a promotion, is hispanic.
I can’t find where it says 9-0. In scanning the dissent, it looks like Ginsburg did not agree with the decision, not just the rendered/remanded part. Where does it say 9-0? I need clarification before I spout off to liberals.
It never says that in so many words.
What it does say is that summary judgment was not justified.
Ginsberg hates this case, and she openly deplores the analysis of the majority and each concurring opinion. You will see a lot of “common-sense” terminology ascribed to the City and its witnesses, and a lot of stuff that says the Ricci legal case and their witnesses are full of crap…in a studied legal language.
But, the money-quote is this foot-note:
Are you making this stuff up?
This is the last line of the opinion:
“The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. “
I have been unable to down-load the opinion until this evening…being actually committing legal practice.
But, I think if you research, you will find that this verbiage is consistent with what I related.
Which means, the Supremes are handing the case back to the District Court level for the entry of SUMMARY JUDGMENT, and appropriate orders, based on the pleadings of each party before it. That is where that stuff happens, not at the appellate court level. But the case is decided, and the rest is a set of formalities.
With all due respect, if you have not read the opinion, you should not be making bold statements proclaiming it to be 9-0 on the substance.
There is most definitely a procedural disagreement. But the main disagreement is substantive; they disagree on the proper legal standard.
How is this for a money statement:
When you read the argument, you’ll see that she vehemently opposes the “strong basis in evidence” standard. This is not a procedural disagreement.