In the legal profession, and in one’s legal education, arguing either side of an issue becomes second nature to you, with compensation determining the side you take.  Trust in the process becomes the underlying conviction, and you argue your side vigorously and to the best of your ability.

In politics, the side you argue might be influenced by compensation, but more often is determined by some degree of belief – - an affiliation with a particular party or philosophy.  The tactics, though, are the same.

Obfuscation, liberty with the truth, misdirection – - all tools in the briefcase, and none on display so much as in the last day of wrangling with the Judge Sonia Sotomayor nomination to the United States Supreme Court.  That court’s decision yesterday brought about a new era in the understanding of and comment upon legal rulings, as well as math.

In a 5-4 decision, the Court overturned the decision of the lower courts in the case of a New Haven, CT rule governing results of open exams for firefighters.  The import of the Supreme Court’s ruling is not important to today’s discussion so much as the cries of “racist” renewed by the political right wing and the Republican party.

Since Judge Sotomayor was one of the three-judge panel on the Circuit Court who ruled in favor of New Haven, and against the interests of a white firefighter who had taken a hiring exam, her ruling has been called race-based, and she has been labeled a “racist” by the likes of Limbaugh the Entertainer and others.  Let us emphasize the “three-judge panel” part of this case’s history.

Yes, there were three U.S. Court of Appeals Second Circuit  judges, not just Judge Sotomayor, who sided with the city of New Haven.  Then, the entire Second Circuit Court of Appeals considered the decision of that three-judge panel, and chose not to review its decision any further.  There are ten (10) active judges and ten (10) senior judges on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

Let’s also remember that the City’s rules required a retesting for firefighter positions when no minority applicants successfully passed the test.  The question before the court was the constitutionality of the City of New Haven’s policies.

So, lots of people have touched this matter, fingerprints everywhere:  those in city government who enacted the regulation; the lower courts where the case was first heard and ruled upon; the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals Second Circuit; the entire U.S. Court of Appeals Second Circuit; and, four members of the U.S. Supreme Court who dissented from the majority opinion.

Yet, the only one who has been labeled a “racist” in all of this is Judge Sotomayor.  She was only one of so many who had a hand in the matter, and it did not reach the Supreme Court necessarily because of her decision.  While she is the only one to have been nominated to fill retiring Justice David Souter’s spot on the bench, she still is the only one to be labeled “racist.”

If you follow politics, and know anything about it, these are the only facts you need to know to understand what’s going on.  It isn’t necessary you  be a lawyer, and you don’t necessarily need to understand the legal issues involved in this case from the lower courts all the way up, either.

It’s enough to know that of the several dozen people who participated in this case at various stages of its process, all of whom took the same position as Judge Sotomayor, only one has been called a “racist.”

But, if you are truly interested in understanding this matter, read the City of New Haven’s municipal regulations governing testing and test results for firefighter positions; read the original pleadings in the case and note who the parties were to the suit; read the full Circuit Court ruling; and, read both the majority and dissenting opinions of the Supreme Court decision.

When you’ve done that, see if you can fit “racist” into the legal equation.  I know I couldn’t.