California Conservative

One of the most hard left organizations, People for the American Way (PFAW), is going after Frank Ricci for his “troubled and litigious work history.”

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.

PFAW plays old-fashioned hardball politics. It’s one of the most despicable organizations in DC. PFAW is a huge advocate for getting the most liberal justices confirmed for the Supreme Court. That’s why they’re focusing on Frank Ricci, though I don’t know how wise that is. Ricci is the fireman who filed the lawsuit that Judge Sotomayor was just reversed on.

Here’s what Slate wrote about the case:

The district court judge who heard Ricci’s case ruled against him and his fellow plaintiffs. They appealed to the 2nd Circuit, the court on which Judge Sotomayor sits. In an unusual short and unsigned opinion, a panel of three judges, including Sotomayor, adopted the district court judge’s ruling without adding their own analysis. As Judge Jose Cabranes put it, in protesting this ruling later in the appeals process, “Indeed, the opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case.…This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal.”

In other words, Judge Sotomayor’s panel of judges tried their best to not give Ricci’s lawyers any ammunition if they decided to appeal this case to the Supreme Court. If that was their strategy, it failed miserably.

Which brings us back to PFAW. They don’t care whether Sotomayor was right or wrong. They don’t worry whether something is on topic. If they find mud on someone, their attacks on their target are ruthless. That’s what’s happening here.

What’s bothersome to me is PFAW’s attention to Mr. Ricci’s litigious history. Why does that matter in Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation hearing? This time, the Supreme Court ruled for him and against Judge Sotomayor. In fact, though the ruling was 5-4, the biggest shot across Judge Sotomayor’s bow was that it was that all 9 justices said that the procedure that the Second Circuit used was flawed.

Expect PFAW to play a high profile role in Sotomayor’s confirmation. They’ll attempt to slime Mr. Ricci so he won’t be the sympathetic figure he currently is. PFAW’s tactics are driven by the racial spoils industry. Currently serving on PFAW’s board are such racebaiting experts as Mary Frances Barry and Julian Bond.

PFAW’s motivation is obvious. They’re interested in keeping the racial spoils industry alive. That they would trash someone like Frank Ricci for that priority is disgusting.

Technorati Tags: PFAW, Mary Frances Berry, Julian Bond, NAACP, Discrimination, Ricci v. DiStefano, Second Circuit, SCOTUS, Sonia Sotomayor, Confirmation Hearings

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

This entry was posted on Saturday, July 11th, 2009 at 9:03 am and is filed under Author: Gary Gross, Judiciary, Liberals. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.