McClatchy Newspapers, are liberals really "targeting" firefighter Ricci?
July 13, 2009 12:19 pm ET by Eric Boehlert
This article hyped the notion that New Haven firefighter Frank Ricci is being targeted by Sotomayor opponents on the eve of her confirmation hearing, where Ricci is scheduled to testify.
Headline:
Sotomayor backers urge reporters to probe New Haven firefighter
Lede [emphasis]:
Supporters of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor are quietly targeting the Connecticut firefighter who's at the center of Sotomayor's most controversial ruling.
The theme of article was unmistakable: Nasty liberals are going after Ricci. They're "targeting" him, despite his "bravery" as a firefighter.
That seems like a stretch. Ricci's reverse discrimination case has become central to the Sotomayor drama. (He claimed the city of New Haven discriminated against him because he's white. From the bench, Sotomayor disagreed. Or more specifically, she refused to overturn an early court ruling against Ricci.) Her opponents think Sotomayor's handling of the dispute was all wrong and have invited Ricci to testify against her.
But it turns out that in the mid-'90's Ricci went to court to land his firefighter job and claimed he was the victim of discrimination. Not reverse discrimination, which has been the mantra of the New Heaven case, but old-fashioned discrimination (i.e., the city of New Haven discriminated against him because he's dyslexic).
In other words, it seems that witness Ricci has been on both sides of the hot button issue of how courts deal with employment discrimination cases. And quite logically, Sotomayor supporters have been flagging that fact and giving journalists a heads-up about Ricci's litigious background.
But how does that translate into "targeting" Ricci? How is that a dark example of "opposition research," which is how McClatchy describes the development. If firefighter Ricci wants to be part of the confirmation hearings, by all means he ought to be welcomed and his testimony taken seriously. But why should the legal context of his remarks be ignored?
UPDATED: It's just a coincidence of course, but Republican politicians are making the same claim--using the same type of language--that Beltway reporters are; that Ricci is being targeted.
Here's Sen. Orin Hatch from the Sotomayor hearing today:
There are reports that extreme left wing groups are engaging in a smear campaign against Frank Ricci.
It's now a "smear" to point out that Ricci has a tendency to sue his employer over hiring practices.
[/kidding]
I didn't know that this was the second time. Not surprised that the Con's didn't vet thier witnesses better however.
And it's funny to me that people are saying liberals are targeting Ricci. Let's see some proof of this. As in, stories? Press releases? And what does targeting mean? Meaning, people write about what he has done in the past? Or, are just being mean to him? Or are people making things up about Ricci? Which if they are, then that's bad.
Why is this guy testifying anyway? Is this going to be another Joe the Plumber boondoggle for the GOP? I'm willing to bet that he never read the decision that was handed down, just that he lost. I'm willing to bet he never read Sotomayor's decision either, just that he lost. And I'm willing to bet he didn't read the SCOTUS decision either, since he knew he won.
What basis does this guy have for commenting on Sotomayor at all? He's got none... He's not a legal expert by any stretch, doesn't know her judicial temperment, and probably knows nothing about her, and the work she's done over the years.
What a poor witness. I'd LOVE to see democratic Senators destroy him during his "testimony" (destroy as in, make or belittle the reason he's there and knowledge and information that he has or doesn't have, not because he's a fireman).
Ricci does a great service to his community by being a firefighter. He brings nothing to the table in these hearings. He should be back at the firehouse waiting for a call to come in, and washing the dalmation.
Probably more to lose than gain by even bothering with him.