Obama’s Supreme Court pick made a decision that was so bad that it was rejected by all NINE justices of the Supreme Court.

Story from DRJ, guest posting at Patterico:

ABC News reports the Supreme Court ruled today that the white New Haven firefighters were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing an appellate decision by Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

The ABCNews article states:

“I think the import of the decision is that cities cannot bow to politics and pressure and lobbying by special interest groups, or act to achieve racial quotas,” said Karen Torre, the attorney for the firefighters. “If the test is job-related, especially in a dangerous occupation, then the fact that more African Americans pass, or more Hispanics pass, or more whites pass, isn’t sufficient grounds to ignore the results of an occupational test.”

Sotomayor ruled against the white male firefighters, and in favor of affirmative action. Wise Latina indeed!

Wendy Long Bench Memos explains what it means:

Not a Single Justice Agreed with Sotomayor

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.  She essentially committed judicial malpractice.

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.

ECM sent me an article from Gateway Pundit, who notes that Sotomayor was overturned SIXTY-SIX PERCENT of the time by the Supreme Court.

Hot Air explains what this means for her confirmation:

This creates a big problem for Obama and the Democrats in Congress.  They certainly have the votes to confirm Sotomayor, but their big sell — that she was one of the appellate court’s most brilliant minds — just took a body blow on this decision.  Most people want to move past the old arguments on race and hiring, feeling that forty years of affirmative-action policies have run their course.  Having to defend a jurist who attempted to impose them in a court case will not make Sotomayor seem moderate or reasonable at all, but extreme and perhaps less than competent.

Ironically, the Democrats have pushed for an earlier confirmation hearing, as soon as mid-July, while Republicans wanted a September date.  I suspect the two may switch sides now, with the GOP wanting to hold the hearings in the wake of Sotomayor’s high-profile reversal, and Democrats perhaps hoping that other stories will eclipse it.  Regardless of when this confirmation hearing takes place, expect Ricci to play a central part in the questioning.

This is good news for everyone who believes in the rule of law.