Judge Sotomayor testifying this morning: “Most of my cases if not all of them explain why the law requires what it does.”

Judge Jose Cabranes describing the opinion of Judge Sotomayor and the rest of the panel in the New Haven firefighter case: the panel gave peremptory treatment to:

significant constitutional and statutory claims of first impression . . . in an opinion that lacks a clear statement of either the claims raised by the plaintiffs or the issues on appeal. Indeed, the opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case, and a casual reader of the opinion could be excused for wondering whether a learning disability played at least as much a role in this case as the alleged racial discrimination. . . . This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal.

When Senator Sessions was grilling Judge Sotomayor on why her panel gave such shoddy treatment to such an important case, the judge kept saying they relied on a “thoughtful 72-page opinion” from the district judge. What she didn’t mention was that before her panel attepted to bury the case in an unpublished ruling, the district judge dug the grave by attempting make certain that no one got to see how “thoughtful” the 72-page opinion was — it, too, was unpublished. This was not an effort to “explain why the law requires what it does”; it was an effort to make the law go away.