. -- the per curiam opinion in ricci v. destefano was based on circuit court, the sixth circuit took the same approach in a similar case are rising in memphis. the role of a circuit court is to follow existing precedents of the supreme court and the circuit court. that is what the ricci v. destefano per curiam did. the supreme court may have reason burst -- reversed but it did so 5-4 on the basis of an entirely new test that created it. it is reserved to call sonia sotomayor and activist for falling existing precedent. if you want a judicially conservative opinion, the ricci v. destefano per curiam is just that. the decision in maloney was also properly conservative in a judicial sense. it approaches with caution a newly minted and narrowly enacted constitutional right. with a extension to the states, would upset generations of practice and experience by sovereign states regulating guns within their borders. a seventh circuit panel with two very prominent conservative judges on it, correctly did exactly the same thing. a ninth circui

example, i was not persuaded by judge sonia sotomayor's claim that she followed precedent in ricci v. destefano, nor her explanation as to why she could dismiss such a significant case with absolutely no legal analysis. i was concerned with judge sonia sotomayor's explanation of her decision in maloney, holding that the second amendment is not fundamental, and her refusal at the hearing to a firm that americans have a right of self-defense. if maloney is upheld by the supreme court, the second amendment will not apply against state and local governments, thus permitting potentially and restrictive limitations on this important constitutional right. i was troubled with judge sonia sotomayor's failure to understand that her decision in didden dramatically and inappropriate spanned the ability of local and federal governments to seize private property, and she mischaracterizes the supreme court's holding in kelo. judge sonia sotomayor's discussion of landmark supreme court cases and her own decision on the second circuit did not convince me that she understands the rights given to americans under

the most recent reversal is a case in point in ricci v. destefano, a case where judge sotomayor dismissed before trial the discrimination claims of 20 new haven firefighters, the supreme court reversed 5-4, with all nine justices rejecting key reasoning of judge sotomayor's court. but in my view the most astounding thing about the case was not the incorrect outcome reached by judge sotomayor's court, it was that she rejected the firefighter's claim in a mere one paragraph opinion and that she continued to maintain in the hearings that she was bound by precedence that supreme court said didn't exist. as the supreme court noted, ricci presented a novel issue two provisions of title 7 to be interpreted and reconciled with few if any precedence in the court of appeals discussing the issue. end of quote. one would think this would be precisely the kind of case that deserved a thorough and thoughtful analysis. but judge sotomayor's court disposed of the case in an unsigned and unpublished opinion that contained -- contained zero analysis. this is confound

i think it is important to look at her decision in ricci v. destefano.his is a case where she dismissed the claim of 19 white firefighters and one hispanic firefighter who alleged reverse discrimination based on the new haven's connecticut's decision not to use the results of a promotional exam because not enough minorities would be eligible for promotion. in the ricci case, she rejected the firefighters' claim. and in a one h-f paragraph opinion, when questioned about it in the confirmation hearing, she maintained she was bound by precedent. potentially and ultimately legal landmark case warning a -- warranting a careful and thorough review of the facts at hand in the law to be interpreted, and judge sotomayor dismissed the claim in one paragraph. clearly a case with issues involving race and discrimination deserve more than a one-paragraph explanation and analysis. even the obama justice department could not defend her actions and submitted a brief to the supreme court on the matter. in it, they agreed that the decision by judge sotomayor should be vac

. >> host: if you look at the recent decision in the ricci v. destefanoase, you have a disparate impact, that is not necessarily the basis for making a decision, that it won't be subjected to reverse discrimination lawsuits. if you have a test and it will have a disparate impact in terms of fell year in the past -- to qualify for promotion and blacks can file suit and say this test is unfair, in the past, we are going to throw the test out, start over and find a test that will allow larger mix of people, more appropriate mix of people to succeed but in this case the court said no, the white firefighter whose studies art and works hard to pass the tests deserved have their individual rights as americans protected, despite your history, patterns of discrimination or the absence of minorities in the fire department in that town. that essentially undermines all affirmative-action efforts because the anybody can sue and say the test is taken, the test is what is and if certain people are promoted and other people aren't, i don't like that tests, and i don't th